You are on page 1of 55

Paper P repared for the GLOBELICS (Global Network for Economics of Learning,

Innovation, and Competence Building Systems) Conference 2006,

4-7 October 2006, Trivandrum, India.

Overseas Acquisition versus Greenfield Foreign Investment:

Which Internationalization Strategy is better for Indian
Pharmaceutical Enterprises?

Jaya Prakash Pradhan

Abhinav Alakshendra

Institute for Studies in Industrial Development

4 Institutional Area, P.B. 7513,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110 070

Acknowledgement : We thankfully acknowledge various helpful discussions with Professor

K S Chalapati Rao at ISID and editorial support from Puja Mehta.

Overseas Acquisition versus Greenfield Foreign Investment:
Which Internationalization Strategy is better for Indian Pharmaceutical Enterprises?


[Very recently overseas acquisition and outward greenfield foreign investment have
emerged as the two important modes of internationalization of the Indian
pharmaceutical enterprises. This study examined the relative strengths and weaknesses
of these strategies so as to suggest which between the two is a more effective
internationalization strategy for the Indian pharmaceutical firms, given the nature of
their ownership advantages. This analysis has been conducted in three stages. First, the
internationalization process of the Indian pharmaceutical industry has been embedded
into a four stage theory emphasizing on the emergence of different modes of
internationalization like inward foreign investment, imports, exports, outward
greenfield investment, overseas acquisition and contract manufacturing including inter-
firm strategic alliances. Second, theoretical perspectives have been developed with
regard to the different ways in which greenfield investment and overseas acquisition
can maximize the revenue productivity of pharmaceutical firms’ competitive
advantages and/or to strengthen their competitive position. Third, case study of
Ranbaxy Laboratories has been undertaken to empirically assess its experience with
overseas acquisitions. The analysis indicates that the growth and internationalization of
Indian pharmaceutical enterprises was critically dependent upon strategic government
policies pursued in the past. The Indian experience offers a number of policy lessons to
other developing countries wanting to build their domestic base in the pharmaceutical
sector. Theoretical understandings indicate that acquisition is a more effective
internationalization strategy than greenfield investment since the former not only
provides all the benefits that the latter gives, but also several other competitive
advantages important for firms’ performance in world market. The experience of
Ranbaxy shows that overseas acquisitions have augmented its intangible asset bundle
of acquiring firms including distribution and market networks and have provided
access to an existing market.]

JEL Classification:
L65; L22; G34; F14; L20.

Indian Pharmaceutical Industry; Foreign Investment; M&As; Trade; Strategic

Overseas Acquisition versus Greenfield Foreign Investment:
Which Internationalization Strategy is better for Indian Pharmaceutical Enterprises?


Since the late 1990s, overseas acquisition has emerged as an important mode of trans-
border business expansion by Indian pharmaceutical enterprises. Increasing number of them,
irrespective of firm size, are acquiring business enterprises, brands, R&D laboratories across
the world ; some of these acquisitio ns are of regional and international significance (Pradhan,
2006). This growing incidence of overseas acquisition is overlapping the recent spurt in the
intensity of Indian pharmaceutical firms to undertake greenfield outward investments
commencing with the early 1990s. This phenomenon has added new dimensions to the
internationalization process of the Indian pharmaceutical industry and indicates how rapidly
the industry is being internationalized.
A variety of factors like adoption of a strong intellectual property right regime,
liberalization of domestic policies with respect to industry, foreign investment, imports and
major liberalization measures at the global level, have all contributed to this
internationalization process. Increasing competitive pressures as a result of policy
liberalization at home and emerging new global market opportunities due to extensive
decline in overseas barriers to trade and investment have respectively pushed and pulled
Indian pharmaceutical companies towards increasing internationalization.
The liberalization of outward foreign direct investment (F DI) policy regime during
1990s seems to have encouraged many Indian pharmaceutical firms to use trans-border FDI
in both greenfield and brownfield forms to diversify aggres sively into the international
markets. The limit of outward investment under the automatic approval of the Reserve Bank
of India, which was just US $4 million in 1993–941 , has increased considerably overtime.
Indian firms are allowed up to US $100 million in a year in 2001–02 2 , then to any amount up
to 100 per cent of their networth in 2003–2004 3 and then further to 200 per cent of the
networth in 2005–20064 . The government has also relaxed the restriction on Indian firms to
access foreign capital markets to raise resources for outward greenfield investment through
issue of American Depository Receipts (ADR)/Global Depository Receipts (GDR) in 1999–

Economic Survey 1997, Government of India, New Delhi.
RBI Circular, A.P. (DIR. Series) Circular No. 27, March 2, 2002.
RBI Circular RBI /2004/11 A. P.(DIR Series) Circular No.57, January 13, 2004.
RBI/2005/463 A.P.(DIR Series) Circular No. 42, May 12, 2005.
2000 5 for software enterprises and in 2001–01 for all firms 6 . In 2000–2001, with a view to
encourage overseas acquisitions, government allowed Indian pharmaceutical firms to use
ADRs/GDRs proceeds for acquiring overseas pharmaceutical companies 7 . Therefore, Indian
policy regime has been equally encouraging greenfield and acquisitions abroad by the Indian
pharmaceutical firms.
Given the backdrop of the macro policy regime in India encouraging
internationalization of Indian pharmaceutical firms through both greenfield investments
abroad and overseas acquisitions, without discriminating them, the present study attempts to
examine which between the two is a more effective internationalization strategy for Indian
pharmaceutical firms. This issue is equally important for policy makers to frame relevant
policy regime and for firms that want to internationalize their business activities through
outward investment route.
The study is organized as follows: Section-2 discusses the four internationalization
stages of the Indian pharmaceutical industry during the post- independence period. Section-3
deals with theoretical and conceptual issues on whether greenfield investment or acquisition
is a better market entry mode for Indian pharmaceutical firms. Section-4 present case stud y
of a selected Indian pharmaceutical firm who has aggressively used both the greenfield and
acquisition modes of market entry to evaluate which among these is more effective.

2. Four Stages of Internationalization Process

In the post-Independence era, the internationalization process of the Indian

pharmaceutical industry can be seen through four stages divided into the following time
periods: 1947–1969, 1970–1989, 1990–1999 and 2000 onwards. Each of these stages is
marked by distinct developments in the internationalization process of the industry as
summarized in Figure-1.

Economic Survey, 1999–2000, Government of India.
RBI Notification No. FEMA 19/RB-2000, May 03, 2000.
Notification, No.F. 15/22/99-NRI, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Investment
Division), dated the 23rd March 2000.
Figure -1. Internationalization Stages of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry

Modes of Internationalization Main Features

• Growing exports and trade surplus, increasing greenfield

outward FDI, surging overseas acquisitions and incidents of



outsourcing including strategic alliances indicates that the
onwards industry is internationalizing faster than ever before.
• Growing sophistication of technological capability of large Indian
pharmaceutical firms is reflected in tendency of out-licensing of drugs
molecules to global firms.

• Domestic firms dominates the industry, highly export oriented with

rising trade surpluses. Apart from outward greenfield investments,

overseas acquisitions emerged as an important mode of




1990-1999 • Pharmaceutical contract manufacturing and research services also

emerged as a new growth strategy for the industry.

• Enactment of a liberal patent regime. Creation and accumulation of

firm-specific advantages by domestic firms under this new patent regime.
• Passing of different regulations like FERA and New Drug Policy 1978

to reduce activities of MNCs in the sector.



• These policies led to the emergence of a strong domestic sector not

1970-1989 only serving domestic market but also interested in entering foreign
markets through exports and greenfield outward investments. Trade
deficits in pharmaceuticals have been consistently reduced.

• MNCs domination, largely import dependent and minimal

export activities.
• Insufficient technological base for local production.
• Starting of public sector enterprises.


1947-1969 • Emphasis on education and skill creation, infrastructure,

institution buildings and planned development.

Time Internationalization Process

Note: IFDI-Inward FDI; OJVs -Overseas Joint Ventures; OSUBs -Overseas Subsidiaries; OACOs- Overseas Acquisitions; OLC-Overseas Licensing; OUCs -Outsourcing. In a notional
sense the size of circle indicates its relative growth overtime and relative importance as mode of internationalization as compared to others.
Source: Own construction.
2.1. The First Stage of Internationalization: 1947–1969

The pharmaceutical industry is perhaps among a few sectors in the Indian economy
whose foundation is built on the process of internationalization. During the first stage of
internationalization over 1947–1969, inward FDI and imports served as the initial channels
of overseas business links for the industry. The industry, which had a meager production
scale of Rs. 10 crore in 1947, was completely dominated by foreign affiliates with more than
90 per cent of the domestic market share. These foreign affiliates, which were primarily
trading and marketing subsidiaries/branches of global firms based in developed countries,
were least interested in local production. They were engaged in the imports of bulk drugs and
then processed them into formulations to sell in the domestic market.
A long term product patent regime, namely the Patent and Designs Act 1911, which
was in place in the country has provided a stronger intellectual protection to the products of
the foreign firms and prohibited any kind of reverse engineering and processes developments
by their domestic counterparts. In many instances, this stronger patent regime renders the
compulsory license mechanism to be ineffective as foreign firms have obtained judicial
injunctions whenever domestic firms are permitted to produce drugs locally at a royalty
payment. There were a few domestic firms in the sector and were no t capable of local
production of bulk drugs due to lack of required technological capabilities. As a result of the
strong patent protection and absence of competition from domestic enterprises, foreign firms
enjoying a monopoly position were charging higher prices for their products in India. Thus, it
is not surprising that the US Senate Committee headed by Kefauver in 1962 had observed
that drugs prices in a poor country like India were among the highest in the world.
Given the high drugs prices, reluctance of foreign firms for local manufacturing and
low domestic technological base to start indigenous production, the government has decided
to directly intervene in the production of basic bulk drugs and to meet the health security of
the people. This led to the establishment of two giant public sector enterprises between 1954
and 1961, namely the Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited and the Hindustan
Antibiotics Limited. This public sector investment played a very important role in the
evolution of the industry by providing technological leadership for local production and
stimulating private entrepreneurial skills related to the pharmaceutical industry in India. For
example, some of the architects of large private Indian pharmaceutical companies like Dr.
Reddy’s Laboratories have came out from these large public sector companies.
The decisive role of the public sector in the initial phase of development along with
its skill creation and crowding in effects on domestic private sector investment gave a lift to
the indigenous production efforts in the industry. By the early 1980s, domestic players not
only started meeting the domestic demand for several essential drugs at reasonable prices, but
also began exploring export activities to other developing countries. So, exports have
emerged as another mode of internationalization in the 1960s but in moderate quantum. The
country continued to rely more on foreign firms and imports to meet the domestic demand
for essential drugs. As a result of large imports and small exports, the country was
consistently suffering from negative trade balance in pharmaceutical products as presented in

Table-1. India’s Trade in Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Products, 1962–1970

(US $million)
Export Import Trade Balance
1962 2 22 -20
1963 2 17 -15
1964 4 17 -13
1965 5 20 -15
1966 5 18 -13
1967 5 26 -21
1968 5 22 -18
1969 7 24 -17
All Above Years 35 166 -131
Note : Figure is for India excluding Sikkim.

Source: Based on UNCOMTRADE Dataset, 2006.

2.2. The Second Stage of Internationalization: 1970–1989

The period 1970–1989 was a very critical stage in the internationalization process of
the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Until this period the internationalization process was
largely based on the activities of foreign firms in the industry and imports from the
developed countries and not on the competitive capabilities of the domestic enterprises. The
process became more advanced and matured during this phase as it was strongly promoted by
the development of domestic skills and innovative capabilities of the domestic enterprises.
The growth of the domestic sector was tremendous in this period due to large-scale
public sector investment in the previous period and implementation of a host of strategic
government policies. The most important government policy was the enactment of the Patent
Act 1970. This Act radically amended the existing regime for patent protection and greatly
reduced the scope for and duration of drug patentability. It recognizes only process patenting
for this sector and that also for a very short period of seven years.
The arrival of process patent regime had a strong and positive impact on local
technological activities through reverse engineering, adaptation and process development. A
large number of Indian domestic firms came into being by developing new cost-effective
processes for drugs developed abroad and successfully competing with foreign firms
operating in India as well as in exporting to third countries. Besides, the government
investment in scientific, skill and physical infrastructure like public research institutions and
laboratory facilities, general educational institutions, technical and managerial training
centers, transport, energy and banking sectors, all have greatly he lped the industry in its
growth. These have provided the industry an easy access to the required financial, human and
entrepreneurial capital.
The government also put strong pressures on foreign firms, hitherto engaged only in
trading to start local production. Under the New Drug Policy 1978 foreign firms, which are
engaged in producing formulations from imported bulk drugs and raw materials, are required
to increase maximum local content in manufacturing bulk drugs within a two years period.
New foreign investment projects are permitted only when they involve local production of
bulk drugs and technology transfer. Large foreign firms are also postulated to start R&D
facilities in India. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) in 1973 required that
foreign firms, which are not engaged in local production of bulk drugs, must dilute their
foreign ownership to 40 per cent.
The initial public sector investment in local production of bulk drugs through public
sector companies, a liberal patent regime for domestic firms encouraging process and
adaptive innovation and pressures on foreign firms for local production, have all contributed
to the rapid growth of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. The production of bulk drugs and
formulations has gone up nearly 7 and 9 times between 1974–75 and 1989–1990. These
translate into a whopping 611 and 755 percentage changes correspondingly (Table-2). Much
of this dramatic growth of the sector is contributed by the rise of domestic sector, which
includes public sector, domestic large-scale sector and domestic small-scale sector. The share
of the domestic sector increased from 62 per cent in 1974–75 to 82 per cent in the case of
technology- intensive bulk drugs production and from 49 per cent to 60 per cent in the case of
formulations. In the production of bulk drugs and formulation, the share of foreign firms got
reduced to 18 and 40 per cent respectively. It is important to note that production of foreign
firms has been increasing over time but their share have shrunk due to relatively phenomenal
rise of production by domestic enterprises.

Table-2. Pharmaceutical production in India, 1974–75 to 1989–1990

Production in Rs Crore Exports as %
Year Domestic Sector % of total Foreign Sector % of total Total of production
A. Bulk Drugs
1974–75 56 62.2 34 37.8 90
1975–76 78 60.0 52 40.0 130
1976–77 87 58.0 63 42.0 150
1978–79 144 72.0 56 28.0 200
1979–80 173 76.5 53 23.5 226
1980–81 184 76.7 56 23.3 240 4.7
1981–82 217 74.8 73 25.2 290 5.3
1982–83 253 77.8 72 22.2 325 3.5
1983–84 290 81.7 65 18.3 355 5.2
1984–85 309 82.0 68 18.0 377 7.8
1985–86 341 82.0 75 18.0 416 8.0
1986–87 NA NA 458 19.0
1987–88 NA NA 480 29.1
1988–89 NA NA 550 44.2
1989–90 NA NA 640 54.8
B. Formulations
1974–75 197 49.3 203 50.8 400
1975–76 260 46.4 300 53.6 560
1976–77 408 58.3 292 41.7 700
1978–79 NA NA 1050
1979–80 NA NA 1150
1982–83 960 60.0 640 40.0 1600 3.4
1983–84 1056 60.0 704 40.0 1760 3.5
1984–85 1096 60.0 731 40.0 1827 5.4
1985–86 1167 60.0 778 40.0 1945 5.5
1986–87 NA NA 2140 4.8
1987–88 NA NA 2350 3.8
1988–89 NA NA 3150 5.0
1989–90 NA NA 3420 9.2
Source: Based on following sources: i. Department of Chemicals and Fertilizers (1978) Basic Data on Drugs
Industry 1977-78, New Delhi; ii. Indian Drugs Manufacturers’ Association (1989) Annual Publication 1989,
Mumbai; iii. Department of Science and Industrial Research (1990) Technology Export Potential in Basic
Drugs and Pharmaceutical Formulations, A Report under the TATT Scheme, New Delhi.

Note : NA-Not available.

The increasing sophistication of the competitive assets of the Indian pharmaceutical
firms brought new dynamisms to their internationalization process through increasing exports
and emergence of greenfield outward fore ign direct investment. The industry, which was
exporting just about 5 per cent of the total production of bulk drugs in 1980–81, now exports
as high as 54.8 per cent in 1989–90 (Table-2). Between 1982–83 and 1989–90, the exports
share in total production of formulations increased nearly by 3 times from 3.4 per cent to 9.2
per cent. As a result of this dramatic growth in the export intensity, the amount of the total
exports from the industry and its growth rates have surpassed the imports in the 1980s
(Table-3) contrary to the trends observed during 1947–1969. The negative trade balances has
given to trade surpluses in the late 1980s, thus, suggesting that exports have become the most
dominant form of the internationalization of the industry. The industry enjoyed a trade
surplus of $185 million during 1970–1989 as compared to a trade deficit of $131 during

Table-3. India’s Trade in Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Products, 1970–1989

(US $million)
Export Import Trade Balance
1970 11 31 -20
1971 12 36 -24
1972 12 29 -17
1973 17 32 -16
1974 26 40 -14
1975 29 44 -15
1976 25 46 -21
1977 33 70 -37
1978 58 89 -31
1979 75 96 -21
1980 109 95 14
1981 109 93 16
1983 151 142 9
1984 197 115 81
1985 130 146 -16
1986 127 167 -41
1987 182 129 52
1988 255 162 92
1989 435 246 189
All Above Years 1993 1808 185
Note : Figure up to 1974 is for India excluding Sikkim and thereafter including Sikkim.

Source: UNCOMTRADE Dataset, 2006.

Given their growing firm-specific advantages due to strategic government policies
and improvement in home country infrastructural base, Indian pharmaceutical firms adopted
OFDI as an alternative strategy to go for internationalization. Patent laxities and demand for
cheap quality drugs in fellow developing countries promoted Indian firms to exploit their
ownership advantages through overseas joint ventures (JVs). The first case of pharmaceutical
overseas JV from Indian economy occurred in 1976 with an Indian firm, namely Sarabhai M.
Chemicals undertaking JVs in Indonesia and Malaysia, one each. Since then a number of
other firms followed greenfield FDI path for internationalization. A total of eleven
companies have undertaken 15 overseas JVs in the 1970s and 1980s (Table-4). Ranbaxy
laboratories with 4 JVs stood as the most aggressive outward investors during this phase. It is
followed by Sarabhai M. Chemicals with 2 JVs and other firms with1 JV each. The most
important character of this wave of pharmaceutical outward FDI is that all the JVs are
targeted towards deve loping countries and majority are jointly owned with local companies
in the host countries. Nigeria has been the top host country with 6 pharmaceutical JVs,
followed by Malaysia with 3 JVs and Thailand with 2 JVs. Most of these JVs are for
manufacturing in the host country. Of the 14 JVs on whom information on motivation is
available, about 12 JVs are for manufacturing, 1 JV is for both manufacturing and marketing
and 1 JV is for marketing only. This shows that the initial wave of outward FDI was to
exploit ownership advantages through local manufacturing in the host countries and also in
collaboration with local partners. Partly, the preference of Indian pharmaceutical company
towards joint ownership was due to restrictive outward FDI policy that was in place during
this period. The government policy permit only minority-owned ventures and that the
outward equity contribution was required to be in the form of exporting Indian made capital
goods, machinery and know how and not in cash transfer (Pradhan 2005).

Table-4. List of Indian Joint Ventures and Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Abroad, 1976–
Company Year Ownership Country JV/ Date of Equity ($ Field of Nature of
WOS Approval million) Collaboration OFDI
Sarabhai M. Antibiotics and
1976 76.6 Indonesia JV 29.07.1976 pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Sarabhai M. Pharmaceutical
1976 40 Malaysia JV 15.09.1976 Manufacturing
Chemicals formulations
Ranbaxy Drugs and
1977 10 Nigeria JV 18.10.1977 0.4 Manufacturing
Laboratories Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Alembic Chemical 1977 UAE 12.10.1977 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Works Co. Ltd. products
McGaw Ravindra transfusion
1979 Malaysia 26.10.1979 Manufacturing
Laboratories solutions and
transfusion sets
Chemosyn Pv. Ltd. 1980 Tanzania 22.12.1980 Manufacturing
Dabur Ltd. 1981 49.8 Nigeria 30.06.1981 Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceutical
1982 Nigeria 08.02.1982 Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Ltd. Products
Pharmaceutical 1982 60 Nigeria JV 18.10.1982 Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
Ranbaxy Drugs and Manufacturing
1983 53.13 Malaysia JV 27.10.1983 0.29
Laboratories Ltd. Pharmaceuticals and Marketing
United Chemalode Pharmaceutical
1984 37.5 Nigeria JV 06.05.1983 Manufacturing
Industries Formulations
Hoechst India Ltd. 1985 100 Nepal WOS 30.12.1985 Drugs and
Lupin Laboratories 1987 65 Thailand JV 03.12.1987 1.04 Bulk Drugs Manufacturing
Ranbaxy Drugs and
1987 41.33 Thailand JV 25.02.1987 0.094 Marketing
Laboratories Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Ranbaxy Drugs and
1988 40 Nigeria JV 22.06.1988 1.172 Manufacturing
Laboratories Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Source: Based on various sources: i. Indian Investment Centre (1998) Indian Joint Ventures & Wholly owned
Subsidiaries Abroad Approved during the year 1996, New Delhi; ii. Indian Investment Centre (1998) Indian
Joint Ventures & Wholly owned Subsidiaries Abroad Approved upto December 1995, New Delhi; iii. Federation
of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (1986) Indian Joint Ventures Abroad and Project Export, New
Delhi; iv. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (1990) Report of Workshop on Indian Joint
Ventures Turnkey and Third Country Projects, New Delhi; v. Agarwal, Ram Gopal (1984) Joint Ventures
Abroad Indian Experience, Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of
India, New Delhi; vi. Research and Information System (2002) Indian Outward FDI Database, New Delhi.

2.3. The Third Stage of Internationalization: 1990–1999

The internationalization process of the India n pharmaceutical industry has further

acce lerated during the period 1990–1999. As a part of the economic liberalization that India
undertook and implemented transitory measures for intellectual property protection and other
commitments under the World Trade Organization obligations, the policy regime governing
the pharmaceutical industry has undergone rapid transformation. The licensing requirement
for entry and expansion of the firms has been abolished, 100 per cent inward foreign

investment has been allowed under the automatic approvals of the RBI, considerable
liberalization of the outward FDI regime for greenfield and brownfield investments,
extensive reduc tion in the price controls mechanism, free imports of formulations, bulk drugs
and intermediates, etc. have been implemented during this stage. As a result of the above
mentioned domestic liberalization coupled with the trans-border trade and investment
liberalization has heightened competitive pressures in the domestic market as well as opened
up new business opportunities abroad.
Export has emerged as the dominant mode of internationalization and has consistently
taken over the imports, leading to a rising trade surplus in the pharmaceutical products.
Between 1990 and 1999, the trade surplus has grown by a remarkable 19 times from $195
million to $3714 million (Table-5). The export intensity, measured as the proportion of total
production exported, has grown from 56.6 per cent in 1990 to 96.9 per cent in 1998 for bulk
drugs and from 9.7 per cent to 22.3 per cent for formulations. Thus, exports became the most
aggressively pursued internationalization strategy for Indian pharmaceutical firms during the
third stage of internationalization.

Table-5. India’s Trade in Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Products, 1990–1999

(US $million) Exports as a per cent of total production
Year Trade
Export Import Bulk Drugs Formulations Total
1990 453 258 195 56.6 9.7 17.2
1991 483 228 256 80.3 10.6 21.6
1992 431 314 117 74.5 9.2 19.7
1993 483 258 225 78.0 11.2 21.9
1994 586 298 287 83.1 11.6 23.1
1995 724 405 319 60.3 13.6 21.3
1996 814 307 507 72.3 23.9 32.3
1997 947 389 558 82.8 23.2 33.9
1998 934 384 549 96.9 22.3 36.1
1999 1075 375 700 NA NA NA
All Above Years 6930 3216 3714 78 16 27

Source: Exports and imports data is from UNCOMTRADE Dataset, 2006. The exports intensity has been
calculated based on following sources: i. Department of Chemicals and Fertilizers (1978) Basic Data on Drugs
Industry 1977-78, New Delhi; ii. Indian Drugs Manufacturers’ Association (1989) Annual Publication 1989,
Mumbai; iii. Indian Drugs Manufacturers’ Association (2001) 39th Annual Publication 2001, Mumbai.

As a result of the liberalization of the inward FDI policy, one would expect foreign
firms to expand their activities in India. It is interesting that such an expectation has not
become an actuality. The actual FDI inflows into Indian pharmaceutical industry is estimated
to be only Rs. 1031 crore over 1992–93 to 1999–00, just 2 per cent of the total amount
received by the economy (Figure-2). This suggests that inward FDI continued to play a
smaller role as a medium of internationalization of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. The
growing competitive strength of the incumbents based on decades of experience in process
development, novel drugs delivery and marketing networks may be acting as a strong entry
barrier for the new global players for foraying into the industry.

Figure -2. Sectoral Composition of Actual FDI inflows, 1992–93 to 1999–2000, In Crores

Others (9765)
Finance (3538)
Computers (1861)
4% Engineering (9543)

Electronics and
electrical equipment
Chemicals & allied
Food & diary products (5542)
products (5266)
(2566) Services (4004) 13%
6% 9%

Source: RBI, Annual Report, various issues

The pharmaceutical outward FDI has become an established mode of

internationalization with a large number of Indian pharmaceutical firms adopting it. Within a
ten year period over 1990–1999, a total of 142 wholly-owned and joint ventures by Indian
pharmaceutical companies have been approved (Appendix Table-6). As compared to just 11
Indian pharmaceutical companies dur ing 1970–1989, a total of 55 Indian companies over

1990–1999 have adopted the greenfield investment as a strategy of international expansion.
Ajanta Pharmaceuticals with 17 greenfield investment projects topped the list of outward
investing firms. It is followed by Ranbaxy Laboratories with 13 projects, Core Healthcare,
Dabur and Sun Pharmaceuticals with 7 projects each.
The character and nature of greenfield investments by Indian pharmaceutical firms
underwent notable changes over 1990–1999. While in the period 1970–1989, overseas
greenfield investments tend to be largely jointly owned with local partners in the host
countries but preference for full ownership has been very strong during 1990s. Out of the 127
greenfield projects for which information on the nature of ownership is available, 64 are
jointly owned and 63 are wholly -owned subsidiaries (Figure-3). As compared to the past
where most of the greenfield investments are for manufacturing in the host location, the trade
supporting greenfield investments emerged as the most important component of outward
FDI. About 58 greenfield projects are for trading and marketing, another 53 are for
manufacturing and another 8 are for both manufacturing and trading. This emergence of the
marketing projects suggest that Indian pharmaceutical firms are giving special focus on
building their own marketing, distribution and services centres abroad to boost their export

Figure -3. Nature of Pharmaceutical Outward Greenfield Projects, 1990–1999

Manufacturing and


Trading and Marketing


Source: Based on Appendix Table-6.

Another important change in the character of greenfield outward FDI pertains to its
geographical distribution. As compared to the second stage of internationalization where
greenfield projects have been largely located in developing countries, the third stage
witnessed a significant proportion of them being directed at the developed parts of the world
economy. Of the 142 projects, developing countries attracted about 80 projects (56 per cent)
and developed countries about 50 projects accounting for 35 percent of the total (Table-7).
Within developing countries most of the projects have been directed at the Asian and African
countries. With the exception of Brazil, Latin America has not attracted any pharmaceutical
greenfield projects from India. Among the top 10 host countries by projects number, 5
countries are developed countries including Russia. USA with 18 greenfield projects is the
major host country. It is followed by Nepal with 13 projects, UK with 12 projects,
Uzbekistan with 9 projects, Mauritius with 8 projects, Russia with 6 projects, China, Ireland,
Netherlands and Thailand with 5 projects each.
It is interesting to note that a relatively higher proportion of greenfield projects
directed to the developed countries are of marketing and trading type whereas those targeted
at developing countries are of manufacturing type. Marketing and trading greenfield projects
claimed about 57 per cent of the total cases in the case of developed countries whereas its
share is just 40 per cent in the case of developing countries (Table-8). It could be that
developing and least developed countries are more attractive for Indian pharmaceutical
companies to start local production because they can exploit their ownership advantages of
cost-effective process in such countries characterized by soft patent regimes and still have a
long transition period to adopt the TRIPs regime. Developed countries with strong patent
protection may be deterring manufacturing type Indian projects unless the projects involve
off-patenting drugs and generics products. As there is stiff competition in the generic
products and lower margin, trans-border production may also be risky when Indian
companies could manufacture these products at much lower costs in India and export to the
developed countries. It appears that establishing trade supporting networks in the developed
countries to support exports from India is finding preference among Indian companies.

Table-7. Geographical Distribution of Pharmaceutical Outward Greenfield FDI, 1990–
Outward Greenfield FDI in Number
Region/Country 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 Grand Percen
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total t
Developed 1 2 6 2 4 11 9 9 6 50 35.2
European Union 1 1 3 1 2 8 5 5 2 28 19.7
France 1 1 0.7
Germany 1 1 0.7
Ireland 1 2 2 5 3.5
Luxemburg 1 1 2 1.4
Netherlands 1 1 3 5 3.5
Portugal 1 1 0.7
Spain 1 1 0.7
UK 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 12 8.5
Other Western Europe 1 1 0.7
Switzerland 1 1 0.7
North America 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 20 14.1
Canada 1 1 2 1.4
USA 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 18 12.7
Other Developed Countries 1 1 0.7
Australia 1 1 0.7
Developing Countries 3 3 8 3 4 17 19 13 10 80 56.3
Africa 1 1 1 5 5 2 1 16 11.3
Botswana 1 1 0.7
Ivory Coast 1 1 0.7
Kenya 1 1 2 1.4
Mauritius 1 1 4 2 8 5.6
Nigeria 1 1 0.7
South Africa 1 1 0.7
Uganda 1 1 0.7
Zimbabwe 1 1 0.7
Latin America 1 2 3 2.1
Brazil 1 2 3 2.1
Asia and Pacific 3 2 7 3 3 12 14 10 7 61 43.0
Azerbaijan 1 1 2 1.4
Bangladesh 1 1 2 1.4
China 1 1 2 1 5 3.5
Cyprus 1 1 0.7
Hong Kong 1 1 1 1 4 2.8
Indonesia 1 1 0.7
Jordan 1 1 0.7
Kazakhstan 1 1 2 1.4
Kyrgyzstan 1 1 2 1.4
Malaysia 1 1 1 3 2.1
Nepal 1 1 3 2 4 2 13 9.2
Sri Lanka 1 1 1 3 2.1
Tajikistan 1 1 1 3 2.1
Thailand 1 2 1 1 5 3.5
Turkmenistan 2 1 3 2.1
UAE 1 1 2 1.4
Uzbekistan 1 2 4 1 1 9 6.3
Central and Eastern Europe 2 1 3 2 3 1 12 8.5
Hungary 1 1 2 1.4
Russia 1 3 1 1 6 4.2
Ukraine 1 1 2 4 2.8
Grand Total 1 3 5 16 6 11 30 31 23 16 142 100
Source: Based on Appendix Table -6.

Table-8. Nature of Outward Greenfield Projects over Developed and Developing

Countries, 1990–1999
Developed Countries Developing Countries
Nature of Projects
Number Per cent Number Per cent
Manufacturing 16 36.4 35 52.2
Manufacturing and marketing 3 6.8 5 7.5
Marketing and Trading 25 56.8 27 40.3
Total 44 100 67 100
Source: Based on Appendix Table -6.

During 1990s, the internationalization process of the Indian pharmaceutical industry

becomes more complex with the emergence of another two new modes of
internationalization like overseas acquisitions and contract manufacturing including strategic
alliances. Although this stage witnessed just three Indian pharmaceutical companies, namely
Ranbaxy Laboratories, Sun Pharmaceuticals and Wockhardt who have used overseas
acquisition or brownfield investment as an internationalization strategy during 1995–1998
(Table-9), this was the beginning of an exploding phenomeno n to be observed from 2000
onwards. Ranbaxy Laboratories as a part of its expansion strategy in the US market has
acquired New Jersey based Ohm Laboratories in September 1995 8. This acquisition helped
Ranbaxy to develop its presence in the US OTC market and also provided manufacturing
support for its approved abbreviated new drug application products. Sun Pharmaceuticals has
used overseas acquisition as an entry strategy into the US generic markets and acquired about
30 per cent equity stakes in the Detroit-based Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories in 1997 9.
The acquired company is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of generic-drugs. To
strengthen its presence in the European market, Wockhardt acquired UK-based Wallis
Laboratory in 1998. Through this acquired entity, Wockhardt has been successful in
supplying its own healthcare products into the UK healthcare chain. The acquired company,

Hindu Business Line (2002), ‘Ranbaxy: A dose of US’, Friday, Jan 11.
Hindu Business Line (2005), ‘Sun Pharma acquires Hungarian unit of US co’, Thursday, Aug 11.
which was loss- making during acquisition year, has been turned into be a profitable venture
in 1999.

Table-9. Overseas Acquisitions by Indian Pharmaceutical Companies, 1995–1998.

Amount ($
Month Year Acquirer Company Acquired Company MILLION) Headquarter
September 1995 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ohm Labs USA
Stake of 30 % in Caraco
1997 Sun Pharmaceuticals 8 USA
Pharm Labs
March 1998 Wockhardt Ltd Wallis Laboratory 9 UK
Source: Pradhan (2006)

A few numbers of Indian pharmaceutical companies have begun to try contract

manufacturing as a strategy of expanding their transnational business operations. Firms like
Ranbaxy Laboratories, Lupin Laboratories and Shasun Chemicals are forerunners in adopting
this new avenue of growth based on internationalization (Table-10). In 1993, Ranbaxy
laboratories signed a contract manufacturing agreement with the US based company Eli
Lilly. As per the agreement Ranbaxy started supplying Cefaclor intermediate to the
American company. Lupin Laboratories had a contract manufacturing agreement with
American Cyanamid, USA to supply a key intermediate of the tuberculostatic ethambutol to
the letter company. Shasun Chemicals, another Indian pharmaceutical company entered into
a strategic alliance with Austin Chemical, USA in 1999. This alliance is for jointly
developing process and providing custom manufacturing to multinational pharmaceutical
companies operating in the regulated American market.

Table-10. List of Contract Manufacturing Agreements, 1993–1999

Indian Foreign
Year Contact Description of Contact
Company Company

Ranbaxy Eli Lilly,

1993 Contract Manufacturing To source Cefaclor intermediate from Ranbaxy.
Laboratories USA

Lupin American Supplying a key intermediate for the

Cyanamid, Contract Manufacturing tuberculostatic ethambutol to American
USA Cyanamid.
Joint process development and custom
Shasun Contract Manufacturing manufacturing to serve multinational
Chemical, 1999
Chemicals and Research pharmaceutical companies operating in the
regulated American market.
Source: Pradhan (2006)

2.4. The Fourth Stage of Internationalization: 2000 onwards

The internationalization process of the Indian pharmaceutical industry has become

widespread since 2000 onwards. Exports continued to accelerate, overtaking imports of
pharmaceutical products by ever rising surplus es. During 2000–2004, Indian pharmaceutical
exports aggregated to be $8.7 billion, much above total imports of $2.7 billion (Table-11).
One of the major reasons for this dramatic exports expansion seems to be the efforts of
Indian pharmaceutical companies to develop their own marketing and trade-supporting
centres in the developed countries and emergence of generics segments as cheaper
alternatives to branded products in the face of rising health care costs of the households.
Many of the Indian companies have built their own brand -names and formulations in
developed countries markets and are known for their internationally certified manufacturing
facilities for quality and safety. Apart from these advantages, Indian companies are also
leveraging benefits from forging strategic and marketing alliances with loca l firms in the
destination markets. All these factors are contributing to the success of India’s
pharmaceutical exports.

Table-11. India’s Trade in Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Products, 2000–2004

(US $million)
Export Import Trade Balance
2000 1255 383 872
2001 1348 429 919
2002 1760 589 1171
2003 2022 635 1386
2004 2291 674 1616
All Above Years 8676 2710 5966

Source: UNCOMTRADE Dataset, 2006.

In the post-2000 period, inward FDI has also contributed to the increasing
internationalization of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Many foreign firms have shown
increasing interest in the Indian pharmaceutical industry through direct investment. The
quantum of their investment more than doubled between 2000 and 2005 from $48 million to
$114 million (Table-12). The total amount of investment undertaken by foreign firms during
2000–2005 stood at $703 million, more than three times the investment they had undertaken
over 1991–1999 ($210 million). As a consequence, the share of pharmaceuticals in the total

FDI inflows has increased from less than 1 per cent in 1991–1999 to 3.4 per cent in 2000–
2005. India’s shifting from a weak patent regime to a stronger patent regime has taken place
during this period and this final shift in the patent regime might have promoted hesitating
foreign enterprises to enter into Indian market.

Table-12. Approved FDI Inflows during 2000–2005

FDI Inflows (US $ million) Pharmaceuticals as
Drugs and Pharmaceuticals All Sectors % share of all sectors
1991–1999 (Aug–Dec) 210 49836 0.42
2000 (Jan–Dec) 48 2851 1.68
2001 (Jan–Dec) 89 3673 2.43
2002 (Jan–Dec) 53 3815 1.38
2003 (Jan–Dec) 58 2401 2.40
2004 (Jan–Dec) 342 3758 9.10
2005 (Jan–Dec) 114 4295 2.65
2000–2005 (Jan–Dec) 703 20792 3.38
Source: i. SIA Newsletter, January 2000; ii. SIA Newsletter, Vol XIII No. 10, February 2005; iii. SIA
Newsletter, Vol XIV No. 10, February 2006.

Note : Exchange rate for dollars obtained from Economic Survey 2005–2006 has been used to convert these two
series into dollar terms.

During this period overseas acquisitions by Indian pharmaceutical firms have

assumed an established trend. In just six years during 2000–2006, the number of their trans-
border acquisitions is totalled at 49 with an aggregate consideration of $1.3 billion (Table-
13). Apart from the conventional motivation of gaining market access, objectives of such
acquisitions become more complex and strategic in nature during this period. Accessing
firm-specific strategic assets like internationally certified ma nufacturing facilities, new
products, research capability, brands, etc. and benefiting from operating synergies have
become the main objectives of acquisitions.
The biggest ever overseas acquisition by an Indian pharmaceutical company is that of
Dr Reddy’ s acquisition of Betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, fourth-largest generics company
in Germany10 . The German entity markets high-quality generic drugs and has a strong track
record of successful product launches. With a current portfolio of 145 marketed products, the
company is one of the fastest growing generics companies in Germany. This acquisition is a
strategic strategy by Dr Reddy to gain an entry platform for the European generics markets

Hindu Business Line (2006), ‘Dr Reddy's buys German co Betapharm for Rs 2,250 cr — Biggest overseas
acquisition by an Indian pharma co’, Feb 17.
and achieve a significant scale in the global market. The acquired firm in turn is expected to
leverage Dr Reddy’s product development and marketing infrastructure to achieve further
international growth and expansion in the long run. This acquisition also includes a research
centre named the Beta Institute, which focuses on applied health management 11 . This
research unit is an added advantage to the Indian company. The second important acquisition
in terms of the size of consideration is the acquisition of Belgium-based Docpharma NV by
Matrix Laboratories12 . Docpharma is a leading generic company having presence in Belgium,
Luxemburg, France, Italy and the Netherlands. The company has a strong product portfolio
of around 130 registered products in these markets. This acquisition is simultaneously
motivated to gain an entry into the European market, to access trade supporting infrastructure
and to benefit from business synergy. By this acquisition, Matrix got access to Docpharma’s
brands, trade names as well as its strong sales and marketing platform in the European
countries. The integration of manufacturing capacity of the Indian firm with Docpharma's
strong marketing and distribution networks is expected to lead to immense economies of
business synergy. The third important overseas acquisition has been done by Ranbaxy
Laboratories in December 200313 . It has acquired the generics business unit of RPG Aventis
in France. Like earlier two acquisitions, this was Ranbaxy’s strategy to get an entry into
French generics market. Besides, this acquisition provided Ranbaxy access to a portfolio of
of 52 molecules, comprising 18 of the 20 best selling molecules in France and established
marketing and distribution networks.
Geographically, the overseas acquisitions by Indian pharmaceutical firms continue to
be directed at developed countries with USA, UK and Germany as top three targeted
countries. Developed countries, who are market leaders in the pharmaceutical industry, have
attracted nearly about 80 per cent of these acquisitions (Table-13). This further suggests
Indian firms are using acquisition as a strategy of acquiring new knowledge that is being
created and accumulated in the research-driven developed countries.

Hindu Business Line (2006), ‘Dr Reddy's acquisition includes research centre’, Feb 18.
Domai.n-B.Com (2005), ‘Matrix Labs acquires Belgian drug firm Docpharma for $263 m’, June 20; Hindu
Business Line (2005), ‘Matrix to acquire Belgian drug firm Docpharma for $263 m’, Jun 20.
Hindu Business Line (2003), ‘Ranbaxy buys Aventis' generics unit in France’, Dec 14.
Table -13. List of Overseas Acquisitions by Indian Pharmaceutical Companies, 2000–March
Month Year Acquirer Company Acquired Company ($ million) Headquarter Objectives
Basics, Germany-based generic company
April 2000 Ranbaxy Laboratories 8 Germany
of Bayer AG
60 per cent stake in Shanghai Wide Tex
December 2001 Aurobindo Pharma Limited China
Chemical Co Limited
A brand called Veratide from Procter &
June 2002 Ranbaxy Laboratories 5 Germany
Gamble Pharmaceuticals
September 2002 Ranbaxy Laboratories 10 per cent equity stake in Nihon Japan
Pharmaceutical Industry Co Ltd
BMS Laboratories Ltd and Meridian
March 2002 Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd Healthcare (UK) Ltd 13 UK
April 2002 Unichem Niche Generics 5 UK
Liquid manufacturing facility from the
July 2002 Ranbaxy Laboratories New York-based Signature USA
Pharmaceuticals Inc
Additional stake of 4 per cent in Caraco
October 2002 Sun Pharmaceutical USA
The entire 50 per cent stake of Shanxi
April 2003 Aurobindo Pharma Limited Tongling Pharmaceuticals Company Ltd 4 China
(STPCL) in a Chinese joint venture
The formulation business of Alpharma
July 2003 Zydus Cadila 6 France
December 2003 Ranbaxy Laboratories RPG (Aventis) SA and its subsidiary 86 France
July 2003 Wockhardt Ltd CP Pharmaceuticals Ltd 18 UK
The assets of the New Jersey-based
May 2003 Suven Pharmaceuticals Ltd USA
Synthon Chiragenics Corporation
80 per cent stake in two Belgium-based
June 2004 Jubilant Organosys Ltd pharmaceutical companies - 16 Belgium
Pharmaceutical Services Incorporated NV
and PSI Supply NV
April 2004 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Laboratorios Klinger 5 Brazil
May 2004 Wockhardt Ltd Esparma Gmbh 11 Germany
Two FDA approved products from
August 2004 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ireland
Clonmel Healthcare Ltd
The global inhalation anaesthet ics (IA)
December 2004 Nicholas Piramal India Ltd 14 UK
business of Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd
May 2004 Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd Trigenesis Therapeutics Inc 11 USA
September 2004 Sun Pharmaceutical Three brands from US-based Women's 5 USA
First Healthcare
October 2005 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Servycal SA Argentina
June 2005 Matrix Laboratories Ltd Docpharma NV 263 Belgium
Additional stake of 12.5% in Strides
February 2005 Stides Arcolab Latina 6 Brazil
The hormonal brand, Uno-Ciclo, from
March 2005 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Instituto Biochimico Indústria 5 Brazil
Farmacêutica Ltda
July 2005 Nicholas Piramal India Ltd 17 per cent stake in BioSyntech, Inc. 7 Canada
September 2005 Matrix Laboratories Ltd 60 per cent stake in the Mchem group China
June 2005 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd Heumann Pharma GmbH & Co Generica 30 Germany
Valeant Pharma's manufacturing
August 2005 Sun Pharmaceutical 10 Hungary
July 2005 Stides Arcolab 70 per cent stake in Beltapharm 2 Italy
November 2005 Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd Roche's API unit 59 Mexico
July 2005 Stides Arcolab A sterile manufacturing facility 8 Poland
December 2005 Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Bouwer Barlett South Africa
June 2005 Ranbaxy Laboratories Efarmes Sa 18 Spain
Dishman Pharmaceuticals &
April 2005 Synprotec Ltd 4 UK
Chemicals Ltd
October 2005 Nicholas Piramal India Ltd Avecia Pharmaceuticals 17 UK

July 2005 Jubilant Organosys Ltd Trinity Labs 12 USA
November 2005 Sun Pharmaceutical Able Labs 23 USA
Malladi Drugs and
May 2005 Pharmaceuticals Novus Fine Chemicals 23 USA
64 per cent equity in Trinity Laboratories
July 2005 Jubilant Organosys Ltd Inc and its subsidiary Trigen Laboratories 12 USA
October 2005 Jubilant Organosys Ltd Target Research Associates Inc 34 USA
June 2005 Stides Arcolab 60 per cent stake in Biopharma 1 Venezuela
March 2006 Marksans Pharma Ltd Majority stake in Nova Pharmaceuticals Australia
February 2006 Dr Reddy's Laboratories Ltd Betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH 582 Germany
February 2006 Kemwell Pvt Ltd Fizer's manufacturing plant in Sweden Sweden
Dishman Pharmaceuticals &
February 2006 51 per cent in IO3S Ltd Switzerland
Chemicals Ltd
February 2006 Aurobindo Pharma Limited Milpharm Ltd UK
February 2006 Natco Pharma Ltd NICK's Drug Store USA
Patents, trademarks and equipmennt of
March 2006 Ranbaxy Laboratories USA
Senetek's autoinjector business
The unbranded generic business of Allen
March 2006 Ranbaxy Laboratories Italy
SpA, a division of GlaxoSmithKline
Source: Pradhan (2006)

A few incidents of contract manufacturing that took place in the 1990s have emerged
as a dominant mode of internationalization of the industry during 2000–2005. A large
number of firms, namely Ranbaxy Laboratories, Lupin Laboratories, Nicholas Piramal,
Dishman Pharmaceuticals, Shasun Chemicals and Ind-Swift Laboratories have aggressively
adopted this new strategy of growth (Table-14). This phenomenon now covers a wider range
of inter-firm cooperation like strategic marketing alliances, collaborative research and out-
licensing. The emergence of out-licensing is an interesting trend where leading Indian firms
like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Ranbaxy started licensing out their technology to global
firms. On 1st March 1997 and 1st june 1998, Dr. Reddy licensed out its two molecules,
namely Balaglitazone and Ragaglitazar to Novo Nordisk of Denmark for further
development14 . In 1999, Ranbaxy licensed out its novel drug delivery system, Cipro OD
(once-a-day) formulation, to the German pharma major Bayer AG15 . While Novo Nordisk
discontinued the work on both molecules of Dr. Reddy16 , Bayer has successfully absorbed
Ranbaxy’s technology in its antibiotic Cipro XR and got approval from the US regulatory
authority in 2002. Along this out-licensing phenomenon, numbers of Indian pharmaceutical
firms have been chosen as partners by global firms for collaborative research on product

India Infoline (2004), ‘Dr.Reddy’s Research Foundation Pharmacophore 2004 Address by Dr K Anji Reddy,
Chairman’, January 17. Available at: .
Hindu Business Line (2002), ‘Ranbaxy to gain royalty from Bayer for Cipro’, Tuesday, Dec 17.
Hindu Business Line (2003), ‘Novo Nordisk drops clinical trials on Dr Reddy's molecule’, Feb 07.
development, which indicates the growing sophistication of the technological capabilities of
Indian firms.

Table-14. An Illustrative List of Contract Manufacturing and Strategic Alliance

Foreign Company Year Contact/Alliance Description of Contact/Alliance
To acquire the exclusive rights to develop, market
Ranbaxy Schwarz Pharma and distribute Ranbaxy's New Chemical Entity
2002 and Marketing
Laboratories AG, Germany RBx-2258 for the treatment of Benign Prostate
Hyperplasia in USA, Japan and Europe
To obtain exclusive selling and distributing rights
Ranbaxy Adcock Ingram, Marketing
2002 of Ranbaxy's range of anti-retroviral products in
Laboratories South Africa Alliance
South Africa
To get exclusive marketing rights of Penwest’s
Penwest Nifedipine XL in selected markets such as China,
Ranbaxy Marketing
Laboratories Pharmaceuticals, 2002 Alliance Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, South
USA Africa, and Sri Lanka and non-exclusive rights in
To market MBI JT Baker and Mallinckrodt's range
Ranbaxy Mallinckrodt Baker, Marketing
2003 of scientific laboratory products in the Indian
Laboratories USA Alliance
Ranbaxy Medicines for Collaborative
Malaria Venture 2003 Research To develop anti-malarial drugs.
(MMV), Geneva Agreement
Collaborative New drug discovery and development of new
Ranbaxy GlaxoSmithKline,
2003 Research chemical entities for selected therapeutic groups
Laboratories UK
Agreement using GSK's portfolio of patented molecules.
Lupin American Contract Supplying a key intermediate for the
Laboratories Cyanamid, USA Manufacturing tuberculostatic ethambutol to A Cyanamid.
To exclusively distribute Lupin’s generic version
Lupin Baxter Healthcare Marketing
2004 of ceftriaxone sterile vials for injection in the USA
Laboratories Corporation, USA Alliance
To promote Allergan’s ZymarTM (gatifloxacin
Lupin Marketing
Allergan Inc, USA 2004 ophthalmic solution) in the US pediatric specialty
Laboratories Alliance
Aspen Pharmacare Manufacturing To development, manufacture and global
Holdings, South 2006 and Marketing marketing (except US, South Africa & India) of
Africa Alliance selected Anti-TB products.
Lupin Chester Valley Marketing To promote Atopiclair™ Nonsteroidal Cream to
Laboratories Pharmaceuticals Alliance pediatricians in the US.
To supply opthalmic products to the American
Nicholas Medical Optics Inc., Contract
2003 company for developed markets like the US,
Piramal USA Manufacturing
Europe and Japan.
Nicholas Marketing For exclusive distribution and marketing of a new
Minrad, USA 2003
Piramal Alliance generation of inhalation anesthetic products .
Nicholas Marketing To exclusively sell Pierre Fabre’s dermatology-
Pierre Fabre, France 2004
Piramal Alliance related or skincare products in India.
To supply two eye-related, anti-glaucoma active
Nicholas Contract
Allergan Inc, USA 2004 pharmaceutical ingredients, namely Levobunolol
Piramal Manufacturing
and Brimonidine to Allergan.
Collaborative To be a partner in the development of processes
Nicholas AstraZeneca AB, for the manufacture of intermediates, active
2005 Research
Piramal Sweden ingredients or bulk drugs for supply to
Nicholas Pfizer International Collaborative To develop processes for Pfizer, provide scale-up
2005 Research batches for Phase trials and contract manufacture
Piramal LLC
Agreement after the product is launched.
Dishman Contract To supply an active ingredient of an anti-
Pharmaceuticals, 2001
Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing hypertension drug, Teveten, still under patent.
the Netherlands
Dishman Contract To develop and manufacture bulk actives for
NU Scaan, UK 2005
Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing nutraceutical products of NU Scaan.
Joint process development and custom
Shasun Austin Chemical, manufacturing to serve multinational
1999 Manufacturing
Chemicals USA pharmaceutical companies operating in the
and Research
regulated American market.
Shasun Eastman Chemical, To collaborate on the development and
2004 Manufacturing
Chemicals USA manufacture of performance chemicals.
and Research
Shasun Contract To manufacture the intermediate for a generic drug
Codexis, USA 2005
Chemicals Manufacturing for Codexis.
Contract To manufacture fexofenadine for Teva's successful
Ind-Swift Lab Pharmaceutical, 2005
Manufacturing anti-histamine generic formulations.
Source: Pradhan (2006).

3. Greenfield versus Overseas Acquisitions : Which is a better strategy?

As greenfield investments and overseas acquisitions have become increasingly

prominent modes of internationalization of the Indian pharmaceutical industry in the recent
years, it is important from firm’s and policy makers’ point of view to examine which one
among these two is relatively a more effective internationalization strategy to pursue. Is
blanket policy encouragement to be given to both these strategies or should there be a
discriminatory policy to maximize overall gains from internationalization. Could Indian
pharmaceutical firms gain more from undertaking overseas acquisitions than greenfield
investments? The purpose of this section is to answer this question by examining the relative
strengths and weaknesses of both these strategies from theoretical perspectives and empirical
analysis and to identify the most suitable strategy for Indian pharmaceutical firms to pursue.

3.1. Theoretical Perspectives

The basic objective of a firm’s internationalization strategy, be it greenfield or
brownfield investment, is to sustain and enhance its competitive advantage in the global
market. This means that this strategy should help in augmenting firm-specific strategic and
competitive assets and/or should maximize economic returns to these assets. Therefore, the
choice between overseas acquisitions and greenfield investments by Indian pharmaceutical

firms depends upon which one serves as the superior competitive tool for these firms when
compared to the other.

3.1.1. Greenfield Investment

Let’s consider first the case of greenfield investment as an internationaliza tion
strategy intend to maximize competitive gains for Indian pharmaceutical firms. As far as the
greenfield investment strategy is concerned, we have conceptualized three dimensions that
link greenfield investment with firms’ competitive position (Figure-4). The fist, D-1, is the
role of greenfield investment as a medium of maximizing economic gains from the
competitive assets of the Indian pharmaceutical firms through overseas production. The
second, D-2, is to undertake greenfield investment to built trade-supporting networks aboard,
which may in turn allow exploitation of competitive advantages via enhanced exports from
India. The third, D-3, is to undertake greenfield investment to source quality raw materials
and intermediates from aboard which may in turn help in improving productivity and
competitive strength. These three dimensions are discussed below in detail.

Figure -4. Three Competitive Dimensions of Greenfield Investment Strategy by Indian

Pharmaceutical Companies

Nature of Ownership Developing Overseas Trade-

Advantages supporting Infrastructure

D-1 D-2



Sourcing raw materials and

intermediates abroad

Source: Own construction.

D-1: Greenfield Investment and Exploiting Ownership Advantages
The mainstream theory of FDI, industrial organization approach, infers that overseas
greenfield projects for horizontal production may be commercially a more useful strategy
when firms possess a pool of competitive and monopolistic assets (Hymer 1960; Caves
1971). These firm-specific assets, which could be product, technology, brands, managerial
and marketing skills and so on, offer the firms some competitive and monopolistic
advantages vis-à-vis their competitors. These advantages in turn can be commercially
exploited the most through greenfield ventures in the host countries rather than by exporting
from home country or licensing out to third parties. Hence, greenfield investments for
overseas production as a useful internationalization strategy is critically linked to the
competitive resource endowments of Indian pharmaceutical firms. If these firms possess such
firm-specific intangible assets, then greenfield investment can maximize revenue
productivity of these assets, not brownfield investment. Firms have more technical and
functional flexibities in the way their firm-specific assets are transferred to overseas locations
and put into productive use in the case of greenfield investments than in brownfield
The major competitive advantages of Indian pharmaceutical firms lay in their
technological capabilities to develop most efficient processes and to a limited extent, in
innovating new ways of delivering drugs. As discussed earlier the Indian Patent Act 1970
and other strategic government interventions have played pivotal role s in the creation and
accumulation of these competitive assets by pharmaceutical firms. However, ownership
advantages on account of product developments are quite limited among Indian
pharmaceutical firms.
The present profile of competitive and ownership advantages of Indian firms can be
exploited through greenfield investment for production in a smaller number of least
developed countries where TRIPs regime is yet to come into force. Indian firms can produce
on-patented drugs in these countries to maximize gains from their competitive advantages
based on process innovation. Although, such an internationalization strategy is a short-run
phenomenon before the transition period to adopt TRIPS regime come s to an end for these
For on-patented products, greenfield investment is no longer a viable strategy to
exploit advantages of cost effective processes in developing countries, which have
implemented TRIPs recently and also in developed countries where strong patent regime
already exists. The competitive advantages of process development can be exploited in
developed countries only in the case of generics and off-patented drugs. However, there are a
number of doubts regarding overseas production being a good option than exports from home
country. Indian pharmaceutical firms may be better-off by exporting from home country as
they have internationally certified manufacturing units at home and enjoy significant cost
advantages due to cheap technical manpower in India. This suggests that overseas production
through greenfield investment have limited scope for exploitation of the ownership
advantages of Indian pharmaceutical firms based on cost effective processes.

D-2: Greenfield Investment and Developing Overseas Trade-supporting Infrastructure

Undertaking greenfield investment to develop trade-supporting networks overseas

like distribution and marketing units, after-sales service and customer care centres, etc. can
be predicted to be a useful strategy to maximize returns from competitive assets of the Indian
pharmaceutical firms through enhanced exports from India. For Indian pharmaceutical
companies creating their own trade-supporting and marketing networks overseas is a better
strategy rather than rely ing on third-party or marketing agents. Given the efficient and low
cost manufacturing facilities approved by various international agencies like USFDA, a
formidable knowledge pool of technical, engineering and R&D workforce, essential R&D
infrastructure and a facilitating trade policy regime, Indian companies are better placed to
produce in the home country and exports to overseas markets in the case of generics and off-
patented drugs. Their own marketing affiliates would ensure better sales to the overseas
buyers, thus leading to higher export performance. Therefore, when Indian pharmaceutical
firms are scaling up their export activities, undertaking marketing and trade-supporting FDI
is essential for Indian pharmaceutical firms.

D-3: Greenfield Investment and Accessing Quality Raw Materials Overseas

Companies can improve their competitive position by securing exclusive sources of

quality raw materials and intermediates overseas by undertaking greenfield investments.
However, the Indian pharmaceutical industry has achieved tremendous progress in terms of
meeting its own requirements of inputs of production. In the early years of Independence, the
industry basically lacked local sources of basic raw materials and intermediates for local
manufacturing of drugs and pharmaceuticals. With consistent government interventions and
change in patent regime in 1970, the industry emerged with near self- sufficiency in quality
raw materials and intermediates. Given that the industry is practically self- sufficient in raw
materials to manufacture the entire range of therapeutic groups, the need to undertake
greenfield investments for securing raw material sources overseas may have a limited
potential for the competitive position of these firms.
The above discussion suggests that the role of greenfield investment for local
production and sourcing of raw materials abroad may have a limited impact on the
competitive gains of the Indian pharmaceutical companies. There is a great merit in
undertaking greenfield investment to boost overseas marketing and trading presence of the
Indian companies to support export activities.

3.1.2. Overseas Acquisitions

There are four dominant ways in which overseas acquisitions can affect the
competitive strength of the Indian pharmaceutical companies (Figure-5). First, it can be a
strategy to gain access to firm-specific assets like new products, brands, technology and
skills, thus, augmenting competitive assets base of the Indian pharmaceutical firms (D-4).
Second, it can provide easy access to an existing market in foreign countries like customer
base of the acquired company (D-5). Third, Indian firms can also get access to marketing and
distribution channels of the overseas entity (D-6). Fourth, the Indian company may benefit
from operating synergies from overseas acquisitions (D-7).

D-4: Overseas Acquisition and Access to Firm-specific Assets

Overseas acquisition can play a major role in strengthening a firm’s competitive asset
bundle by facilitating access to new products, new technologies, brands and new knowledge
of the acquired entity. This type of brownfield investment is known as strategic assets-
seeking FDI and is primarily motivated to take advantage of knowledge and research
capabilities that exist in foreign countries. These assets can be crucial for technology
laggards like Indian pharmaceutical firms that are still lacking in advance competitive
advantages based on product developments. Interestin gly, a large number of Indian
pharmaceutical firms are now adopting acquisition as a strategy of acquiring new product
portfolios, brands, research laboratories and technologies (Pradhan, 2006). Overseas
acquisition is a less risky way of acquiring advanced technological capabilities rather than
the risky way of undertaking long-period R&D activities involving huge resources.
Acquisition may involve substantial costs but with a higher liquidity in the domestic capital
and financial markets and easy access to the international capital markets, Indian
pharmaceutical firms have shown their ability to raise needed resources to undertake such
knowledge seeking brownfield investments (Pradhan, 2006). Hence, we can predict that
overseas acquisition can be instrumental by brining in new tangible and intangible assets to
the Indian pharmaceutical firms.

D-5: Overseas Acquisition and Access to Existing Market

Unlike greenfield investments where a firm needs to create a market in the overseas
countries unless its products were previously exported, overseas acquisition provides an easy
access to an existing market. Through overseas acquisition the acquiring firm gains an
immediate market access in the form of the customer base of the targeted company, thus
eliminating co mpetition. For Indian pharmaceutical firms that are striving to enhance their
market position in the world generic markets, overseas acquisition can be a quicker market
entry strategy than greenfield investment.

Figure -5. Four Competitive Dimensions of Brownfield Investment Strategy by Indian

Pharmaceutical Companies

Access to firm-specific Access to existing market

strategic assets (i.e. customer base)

D-4 D-5


D-6 D-7

Access to trade -
supporting infrastructure Benefits from operating

Source: Own construction.

D-6: Overseas Acquisition and Access to Trade-supporting Infrastructure
Exporting to the overseas markets, apart from other factors, crucially depends upon
the exporters’ access to a well-developed marketing and after-sales infrastructure abroad. For
many reasons relying on third party marketing agents may not be a good strategy in the long
run and exporters would like to have their own export-supporting networks aboard. An easy
way to do this is to acquire an overseas company having established marketing and
distribution networks, rather than undertaking greenfield investment. Because Indian
pharmaceutical firms have increasingly resorted to exporting as the main mode of
internationalization, developing marketing networks in the overseas markets is of vital
importance. In this case acquiring an existing company seems to be a better option for the
Indian pharmaceutical companies for getting quick access to such marketing infrastructure
for export activities.

D-7: Overseas Acquisition and Operating Synergies

One of the strategic and long-term economic gains that can arise from overseas
acquisition is increased operating and business synergy between acquired and acquiring
entities. In many ways this can also be a useful way for the firms to improve their
competitive positioning through overseas acquisition route. For example, when an Indian
generic player with a strong product portfolio but lacking access to overseas distribution
networks, choose to acquire a generic company in a foreign market that has excellent
distribution channels, then their combined entity reap economies of operating synergies.
Since Indian pharmaceutical companies are still laggards in variety of competitive
dimensions, we predict that horizontal overseas acquisition to create a global value-chain has
a great potential to reap substantial operating synergies.
The above discussions suggest that as far as Indian pharmaceutical firms are
concerned, greenfield investment has a limited scope for exploiting ownership advantages by
the Indian pharmaceutical companies via direct production and securing of overseas sources
of raw materials for them. However, it has a great potential in building trade-supporting
networks overseas for promoting exports from India. Overseas acquisition, as compared to
greenfield investment, offers more benefits to Indian pharmaceutical firms. Overseas
acquisition simultaneously provides access to established marketing networks, tends to
augment Indian firms' ownership advantages by new products and other firm-specific
intangible assets, ensures an existing market and guarantees gain from business synergies.
Thus, overseas acquisitions can be viewed as mo re value creating and competitive strategy
for Indian pharmaceutical firms than undertaking greenfield investments.

3.2. An Empirical Case Study: Ranbaxy Laboratories

After theoretically predicting that overseas acquisition is a better internationalizatio n
strategy than greenfield investments for Indian pharmaceutical firms, we are interested in
empirically verifying this proposition. As the acquisition is a recent phenomenon, comparing
benefits of such a strategy vis-à-vis greenfield investment suffers from serious limitation both
in terms of availability of required data and a short time period. It is well understood that the
full benefits of acquisition can only be realized with a time gap as the effective integration of
the two business models can be a lengthy and tougher process facing the cross-border
differences in the political, economic and cultural systems. Further, the performance of the
acquired company itself may not capture all the economic benefits that acquisition endows
on the acquiring firm like access to new products, technology, know- how, skill, marketing
distribution, etc. Keeping in mind all the above limitations, we proceed to discuss the case of
Ranbaxy Laboratories, which is the forerunner from the Indian pharmaceutical industry to
adopt both the internationalization strategies of greenfield and brownfield investments. Our
approach in the case study would be to examine the stand-alone performance of the acquired
subsidiaries following the acquisition year and discern possible benefits that Ranbaxy
obtained from it. Although such an approach has not compared the economic performances
(e.g., sales growth and rates of profit) of greenfield subsidiaries vis-à-vis brownfield
subsidiaries, mainly due to lack of data and acquisition being very recent, still this can reveal
the benefits that acquisition provides to the acquiring firm. As mentioned earlier, a usable
database comprising financial information about the overseas subsidiaries of Indian
multinational firms is not available and hence the study has to rely on the data supplied by
Ranbaxy Laboratories itself upon authors’ request and other supplementary reports from
news papers and magazines. Ranbaxy Laboratories like many other firms does not attach the
balance sheets of its subsidiaries in the annual report in view of exemption granted by the
Central Government under Section 212(8) of the Companies Act 1956, otherwise annual
reports of the company would have been a useful source.

3.2.1. Ranbaxy Laboratories: Domestic Growth
Since a firm comes into being in the domestic market before it expands into the
international market, understanding firm’s growth in the domestic market is a precursoring
step to understand its international growth. In the domestic market a firm emerges to satisfy
human wants by organizing production and allocating resources and thereby maximizing its
objective functions like profit, sales or growth. Once a firm emerged in the market, whether it
will survive or grow shall depend upon its capability to create and accumulate a set of firm-
specific competitive capabilities like technology, skills and marketing strength to favourably
discriminate ones’ product from the others. Once a firm captures a dominant share in the
national market based on its created and accumulated strategic assets, it tends to explore
market opportunities overseas.
The case of Ranbaxy clearly verifies that the emergence of outward investments (both
greenfield and brownfield) is crucially linked with its domestic growth and government
policies. The company came into being in Amritsar in the 1950s as a distributor company for
A. Shionogi, a Japanese pharmaceutical company17. It was promoted by Ranjit Singh and
Gurbux Singh, former employees of the said Japanese company’s trading branch in India.
This period was the first stage of internationalization of the Indian pharmaceutical industry
where multinational firms were dominating the domestic market and domestic firms like
Ranbaxy used to distribute imported medicines from the global firms. In early 1960s, Bhai
Mohan Singh acquired the company and got into manufacturing of antibiotics in 1960
through collaboration with Italian pharma company Lapetit Spa (Milan). A few years later,
the company over took the joint venture antibiotics plant in Okhla and became a public
limited company in 1973 to raise resources from Indian Stock Exchange. These resources
were utilized to finance two bulk drugs manufacturing facilities at Mohali, India.
The enactment of a soft patent regime in 1973, a discriminatory drug and pricing
policy with respect to foreign firms, ha ve been the instrumental factors that nursed
Ranbaxy’s dramatic growth in the domestic market and eventually in the global market. The
company copied technologies from other countries like Hungary and developed new
processes from patented products of multinational firms in India. The enlarging size of
human capital like chemical engineers, technicians, scientists, pharmacists and chemists due
to national investments in skill formation has played a great role in enhancing Ranbaxy’s

Hindu Business Line (2006), ‘Bhai Mohan Singh: Pioneer of pharma’, Mar 29; Economic Times (2006)
‘Story-teller was the story’, April 12.
ability to invent cost effective processes. The launching of the sleeping pill, Calmpose, a
generic formulation of the hugely popular Roche's patented Valium tranquillizer, has
strongly enhanced Ranbaxy’s presence in the domestic market. In 1978 and 1985, Ranbaxy
developed novel processes for the manufacturing of the antibiotic doxycycline and ranitidine
respectively. Eventually , this growing technological strength has provided Ranbaxy with
significant cost advantage s in next 30 years or so and increased its market share significantly.
This also led to the starting of the internationalization process of the company through
greenfield outward investments into developing countries.

3.2.2. Ranbaxy Laboratories: Internationalization Process and Emergence of Outward

In the literature of international business, normally export is viewed as the first mode
of internationalization of a firm and then comes the greenfield outward investment. It is
interesting to note that greenfield investment has been the first internationalization strategy of
Ranbaxy and is followed by export. In 1977 the company used the joint venture route to
internationalize its business activities. Its first international joint venture has been set up in
Nigeria with a minority ownership of 10 per cent. As per the existing outward FDI policy
regime of the home country at that time, the company’s equity contribution has to be in the
form of exports of Indian made capital goods and know- how. Normally cash transfer was not
permitted at that time (Pradhan 2005). The company supplied equipments against its share
holding in the joint venture unit in 1978. The production of this overseas joint venture began
in October 1979. The main motives of Ranbaxy’s Nigeria venture were to exploit its process
advantage in a least developed country where there is unfulfilled demand for cheap drugs and
slackness in patent regulation. The outward greenfield investment in southern countries is
viewed by the firm as diversifying risk across regions strongly backed by the Indian
government policies aimed at enhancing south-south cooperation. The receptive attitude of
the governments in host developing countries towards southern investment also has been
another important factor that contributed to the Indian firms’ internationalization process
including that of Ranbaxy Laboratories.
The second international joint venture of Ranbaxy has been directed at Malaysia in
1983. This joint venture is formed by Ranbaxy, the Indian government and Malaysian

shareholders 18 . Clearly, this was a strategy of the Indian government policy of sharing India’s
development experience with other developing countries through technology transfer. In the
present joint venture, Ranbaxy had about 53 per cent of ownership, much higher than the
percentage of equity it had in the Nigerian joint venture. Since the n Ranbaxy Laboratories
has expanded its geographical presence through joint venture to new countries like Thailand,
Canada and China, and through wholly-owned subsidiaries in countries like the Netherlands
and Hong Kong during 1980s–90s (Table-4 and Appendix Table-6). At the end of 2005, the
number of subsidiaries and joint ventures of Ranbaxy stood at 50 covering a total of 30
countries including India (Table-15). There has been a definite shift of Ranbaxy’s preference
towards full-ownership in its overseas ventures. In 48 overseas ventures Ranbaxy now holds
majority or full-ownership and has just two overseas joint ventures. USA turns out to be the
major host with 6 overseas ventures, followed by Thailand and UK with 4 and 3 overseas
ventures respectively.

Table-15. List of Subsidiaries and Joint Ventures of Ranbaxy Laboratories as on 2005

Country of Shareholding
Subsidiary incorporation (%)
Domestic Subsidiaries
Ranbaxy Drugs and Chemicals Company (A public
India 100 Subsidiary
company with unlimited liability)
Ranbaxy Drugs Limited India 100 Subsidiary
Rexcel Pharmaceuticals Limited India 100 Subsidiary
Solus Pharmaceuticals Limited India 100 Subsidiary
Vidyut Investments Limited India 100 Subsidiary
Ran Air Services Limited (Formerly Vidyut Travel India 100 Subsidiary
Services Limited)
Gufic Pharma Limited India 98 Subsidiary
International Subsidiaries
Ranbaxy (Netherlands) B.V ("RNBV") Netherlands 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy N.A.N.V Netherlands 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy (S.A.) (Proprietary) Limited South Africa 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Inc.(Formerly Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc) USA 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc USA 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy USA, Inc USA 100 Subsidiary
Ohm Laboratories, Inc USA 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Laboratories Inc USA 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Holdings (UK) Limited UK 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy (UK) Limited UK 100 Subsidiary

Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (2003), ‘Ranbaxy ups stake in local ops’, 7 March.
Ranbaxy Ireland Limited Ireland 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy (Hong Kong) Limited Hong Kong 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Egypt (L.L.C.) Egypt 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Poland S.P Zoo. Poland 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals B.V Netherlands 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Europe Limited UK 100 Subsidiary
Basics GmbH Germany 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Do Brasil Ltda. Brazil 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Panama, S.A. Panama 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Vietnam Company Limited Vietnam 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Pharmacie Generiques SAS (Formerly RPG
France 100 Subsidiary
(Aventis) S.A.)
Office Pharmaceutique Industriel et Hospitalier SARL
France 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy PRP (Peru) S.A.C. Peru 100 Subsidiary
Laboratories Ranbaxy, S.L. Spain 100 Subsidiary
ZAO Ranbaxy Russia 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Portugal - Com E Desenvolv De Prod
Portugal 100 Subsidiary
Farmaceuticos Unipessoal Lda
Ranbaxy Australia Pty. Ltd Australia 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Italia S.p.A Italy 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Hungary Kft Hungary 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Mexico S.A. de C.V Mexico 100 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc Canada 100 Subsidiary
Unichem Distributors Ltd. Thailand 99.96 Subsidiary
Bounty Holdings Company Limited Thailand 99.3 Subsidiary
Unichem Pharmaceuticals Limited Thailand 98.5 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Uniche m Company Limited (Formerly
Ranbaxy (Thailand) Co. Ltd.) Thailand 88.56 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Nigeria Limited Nigeria 84.89 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy (Guangzhou China) Limited China 83 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Farmaceutica Ltda. (Formerly Ranbaxy S.P. Brazil 80 Subsidiary
Medicamentos Ltda)
Ranbaxy Signature, LLC USA 67.5 Subsidiary
Ranbaxy Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia 68.05 Subsidiary
Sonke Pharmaceuticals (Proprietary) Limited South Africa 100 Subsidiary
Nihon Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd Japan 50 Joint Venture
Thembalami Pharmaceuticals (Pty.) Ltd. South Africa 50 Joint Venture
Source: Ranbaxy Annual Report 2005.

Most importantly, a number of overseas subsidiaries of Ranbaxy have been acquired

through brownfield investment. Starting with the acquisition of O hm Laboratories in 1995,
Ranbaxy has pursued inorganic route to growth via overseas acquisitions to diversify into

new markets and products like pharmaceutical generics and to acquire firm- specific
intangible assets like technologies, skills and brand name s. Ranbaxy Pharmacie Generiques
SAS and Basics GmbH are other two subsidiaries that Ranbaxy had acquired abroad
(Table-13). In the first three months of 2006, Ranbaxy had already acquired two generics
companies, namely Terapia in Romania and Ethimed in Belgium, besides acquiring a large
unbranded generic product portfolio of Allen S.p.A. in Italy. Therefore, both greenfield as
well as brownfield investments have emerged as important internationalization strategies of
Ranbaxy. As compared to greenfield outward investment like overseas joint ventures, exports
of pharmaceutical products as an inter nationalization strategy had started in the late 1980s.
Undertaking overseas joint ventures has been a great source of learning for operating in
international markets and has helped the company in exporting pharmaceutical products from
the home country. Malvinder Singh, President of Ranbaxy has described the importance of
undertaking overseas joint ventures in the internationalization of the company as follows:

“Our first joint venture was in Nigeria (1977), then we went to Malaysia, and
then to Thailand. There we picked up and learnt what it meant to operate in an
international market, at patent regimes, at marketing and distribution. It is
completely different. So we moved up the value chain in our products and up
the export markets from developing nations to developed nations. By that time
1993 had come. We said it is not just India; it (the market) is global of which
India is one market. A huge emphasis would be on research and development --
that really is the thrust of the pharma industry in terms of products 19 .”

3.2.3. Ranbaxy’s Experience with Brownfield Subsidiaries

In this section we will examine Ranbaxy’s experience with three acquisitions done in
different countries, namely Ohm Laboratories in USA, Basics GmbH in Germany and
Ranbaxy Pharmacie Generiques SAS in France.

Ohm Laboratories
In the early 1990s, the US emerged as one of Ranbaxy’s faster growing export
market. It has established a wholly-owned greenfield subsidiary, namely Ranbaxy

19 (2004), ‘Ranbaxy is what it is because we took risks’, The Rediff Interview/Malvinder Singh,
President, Ranbaxy , November 25. Available at:
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (RPI) in 1994 with the basic objectives of undertaking sales, marketing
and distribution supports for its generic and branded prescription products in the US market.
It soon realized that creating marketing networks alone in a competitive market like the US is
not a sufficient strategy unless there is a strong manufacturing support at the local level.
Ranbaxy wanted to gain access to additional marketing and sales infrastructure, customer
base and an established manufacturing facility to quickly expand its presence in the US
pharmaceutical market and thus acquired the Ohm Laboratories headquartered in North
Brunswick, New Jersey in 1995. Ohm Laboratories is a relatively younger player in the US
OTC market starting its operation in 198220 . This acquisition provided Ranbaxy with access
to an US FDA approved manufacturing facilities for a narrow portfolio of over-the-counter
(OTC) products covering tablets, caplets and capsules in the categories of analgesics, anti-
diarrheals, laxatives, antacids, cough and cold preparations.
Since the acquired entity was relatively a younger player with a narrow range of
products, Ranbaxy faced with the challenges of expanding its product line and also
broadening existing customer base. Ranbaxy decided to expand manufacturing facilities at
Ohm Laboratories and build a new US-FDA-approved state-of-the-art manufacturing facility
by July 199621 . The enhanced production capabilities and processes are now capable of
offering manufacturing supports to a diversified line of OTC branded and generic
pharmaceuticals. Along with this overhauling of product range and manufacturing
capabilities, sustained efforts were put in expanding marketing and sales and further
upgradation were undertaken in packaging capabilities. Moreover, the business activity of
Ohm Laboratories has been successfully aligned with that of Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc.
With the implementation of these integration programmes and creation of capacities
for new products and marketing, in the coming years promising results started flowing from
this acquisition (Box-1). The OTC products business of Ohm Laboratories grew impressively
— demonstrating an annual average rate of 45 per cent in sales during 1996–2001. Barring
the year 1999, the profit before tax (PBT) has also shown a positive trend during 1996–2001,
achieving a total PBT of US$ 3.2 million (Table-16). This growth is a result of well-planned
business strategy integrating manufacturing and sales and marketing activities that in turn
made Ranbaxy a popular brand in the OTC segment of the US healthcare system. The

Business Wire (1995), ‘Ranbaxy acquires Ohm Laboratories’, Sept. 25
Business Wire (1996), ‘Ohm Laboratories Completes New State-of-the-Art Manufacturing Facility; India's
Ranbaxy Laboratories U.S. Arm To Produce Broader Line of Oral Generic Pharmaceuticals’, July 31.

Annual Report 1999 of Ranbaxy while reviewing its global operation has following points to
make on the role of Ohm Laboratories:

“The focus of business at Ohm Laboratories Inc. has been the achievement of
being recognized and accepted as a prominent supplier of OTC products to
end-users of packaged & finished dosage forms, for sale to retail outlets under
their own private label brands. The Co mpany’s efforts in this direction have
established strong relationships with a number of retail outlets, including
Retail Pharmacies, Mass Merchandisers and Food Outlets. During the course
of 1999, Ohm Laboratories also maintained its business as a bulk supplier of
finished OTC dosage forms, to targeted customers who supply dosage forms
to other segments of the market.”

Table-16. Sales and Profit Before Tax of Ohm Laboratories, 1996–2001.

In US$ Million
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. {Including Ohm
Year Ohm Laboratories
Laboratories, Ranbaxy Schein & Ranpharm}
Sales PBT Sales PBT
1996 8.4 NA NA NA
1997 11.6 0.2 NA NA
1998 19.5 0.5 NA NA
1999 15.3 -1.2 NA NA
2000 21.1 0.7 NA NA
2001 43.1 3 NA NA
2002 NA NA 296 44.89
2003 31.9 NA 413 45.46
2004 37 NA 426 50.76
2005 NA NA 333 -28.55
Source: Data for Ohm Laboratories has been collected from Ranbaxy Annual Reports, various years. Data for
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc. {Including Ohm Laboratories, Ranbaxy Schein & Ranpharm} has been collected
from Ranbaxy’s head office via special request from authors.

Apart from contributing positively to the global revenue of Ranbaxy and creating its
brand awareness with the US consumers and retail traders in the private label OTC segment,
Ohm Laboratories has endowed Ranbaxy with several other important benefits. It has played
an important role in reducing Ranbaxy’s timelines in accessing the US market by filling and
securing approvals for several of its ANDA (Abbreviated New Drug Applications). As of
April 2005, Ranbaxy has a total of 151 product filings, of which 99 have been already

approved by the US FDA and 52 are pending for approval22 . Importantly some of these
ANDAs have been developed, filed and manufactured by Ohm Laboratories itself (see
Box.1). The advanced capabilities of Ohm Laboratories in research and new product
development is not only producing these ANDAs, but also acting as a knowledge -absorber
for Ranbaxy from the US innovation system.

Box. 1. Benefits of Acquiring Ohm Laboratories

• Positive contribution to the global revenue of acquiring company.
• Providing access to the US OTC market, marketing infrastructure and advanced
manufacturing capabilities.
• Providing manufacturing support to the marketing arm of the acquiring company, namely
Ranbaxy Pharmaceutical Inc.
• Filing and receiving approvals for ANDAs of the acquiring company. Some of these
ANDAs are developed by Ohm laboratories itself. For example, in 2001 Ohm
Laboratories ha d developed, filed and manufactured Advil Cold and Sinus Ta blets (an
ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine combination product)23 . The first interstate shipments
were made by its marketing partner, Perrigo of Allegan, Michigan on October 8, 2001. It
was the ANDA applicant to file for the product and represents the first ge neric equivalent
with an AB rating to Whitehall Laboratories Inc's Advil cold and sinus tablets, an over-
the-counter combination product for nasal congestion, headache, fever, body aches and
pains. In September 2003, Ohm Laboratories had received approval from the US FDA to
manufacture and commercialize its ANDA for Loratadine 10 mg tablets, which is the
generic equivalent of Schering-Plough's long-acting tricyclic antihistamine agent
Claritin 24. Recently in September 2005, Ohm Laboratories received US FDA approval to
manufacture and market Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Tablets USP,
120 mg25.
• Ohm Laboratories is also a channel of knowledge-spillovers from the US market to
Ranbaxy Laboratories.

Ranbaxy (2005), ‘Ranbaxy Q1, 05 Global Sales At USD 261 Mn’, Press Release April 28.
23 (2001), ‘Ranbaxy's US subsidiary launches ibuprofen- pseudoephedrine combination
product’, October 10.
Hindu Business Line (2001), ‘Ranbaxy arm in marketing tie-up for Advil tablets’, October 11.
Ranbaxy (2005), ‘Ranbaxy Gains Approval to Market Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride Extended-Release
Tablets’, Press Release September 28.
Basics GmbH
After achieving a critical market position in the US market in the late 1990s, Ranbaxy
Laboratories has expanded its acquisition based business strategy to include other lucrative
markets such as Europe. Germany being the third largest generics market in the world has
attracted its attention. As a part of the entry strategy into the generics market in Germany,
Ranbaxy has acquired Bayer’s generics business (trading under the name of Basics) in
Germany in April 2000 with a total consideration of US $7.1 million26. Later this acquired
business was incorporated into a newly set up wholly-owned subsidiary, Basics GmbH. The
immediate benefits that flows from this acquisition was that Ranbaxy became the owner of a
portfolio of twenty products hitherto marketed under Basics, their brand loyalties and an
established marketing and distribution networks. This provided a quick business base to cater
to a fast growing generic market, namely Germany. Through existing marketing networks,
Ranbaxy found it easier to introduce new products of its own to the portfolio of the Basics

Table-17. Sales, Profit Before Tax and Total Asset of Basics GmbH, 2000–2005
In US$ Million
Sales PBT Asset
2000 1.80 -0.60 NA
2001 5.70 -0.90 NA
2002 9.89 -1.47 12.3
2003 9.21 -0.24 10.0
2004 16.92 1.70 8.8
2005 20.40 2.66 9.2
Source: (i) 2002– 2005 data for Basics GmbH has been collected from Ranbaxy’s head office via special
request from authors; (ii) 2000–2001 data is from Ranbaxy Annual Report 2001.

The performance of the acquired business has been that its sales have grown
phenomenally since acquisition year 2000. The total sale of the company was just $1.8
million in 2000. It became five times in 2002 and eleven times in 2005 (Table-17). In the
initial four years from acquisition, margins on the acquired business continued to be negative
but became positive since 2004. The summation of margin figures for all the years during
2000–2005 reveal a positive figure of $1.15 million. This suggests that Ranbaxy has been
able to successfully turn around the loss- making acquired entity into a profitable venture just

Business World (2004), ‘PHARMA M&AS: What's the big deal?’, June 28
three years after the acquisition. It is important to note that Basics GmbH now generates a
turnover of $20.40 million, which is twice the value of its total asset ($9.2) in 2005.
Therefore, Ranbaxy has reaped several benefits by acquiring Bayer’s generic business
in Germany like gaining access to growing German generic market, a new product portfolio,
brand loyalties and marketing infrastructure and a positive profitable contribution from the
acquired company towards its global revenue.

Ranbaxy Pharmacie Generiques SAS

Ranbaxy continued its market expansion strategy in the European generic markets
and has targeted the French generic market. The size of this market is estimated at about 652
million euros and is the fifth largest in size after the US, Japan, Germany and UK 27 . Ranbaxy
has acquired France-based generic player RPG Aventis and its subsidiary, OPIH SARL, in
December 2003. RPG Aventis was the only generic arm of the global pharmaceutical player,
Aventis and it undertakes sales and marketing activities. With sales of 44 million euros in
2002, the acquired entity was ranked fifth in the French generic market. After acquisition the
name of the acquired business has been changed into Ranbaxy Pharmacie Generiques SAS.
In a market where Ranbaxy did not have a presence, this acquisition immediately
catapulted Ranbaxy to be the fifth largest market player and provided a branded portfolio of
52 products, of which 18 are among the 20 best selling products in the market 28. Ranbaxy
also got access to an established marketing and distribution networks in the French market.
As a result of this acquisition, Germany has emerged as the third largest market for Ranbaxy
after USA and India with sales of $73 million in 2004 29 . Table-18 provides the sales, profit
before tax and asset of the acquired company for 2004 and 2005. It can bee seen that
although Ranbaxy has been able to increase sales of the acquired company from the pre-
acquisition value of 44 million euros in 2002 to a post acquisition value of 59.5 44 million
euros in 2005, margins from the business is still under pressure and are negatives. Since the
effective acquisition year is 2004, it seems that for positive results to flow from the transfer
and integration of this newly-acquired company would take few more years.

Hindu Business Line (2003), ‘Ranbaxy buys Aventis' generics unit in France’, Dec 14.
Hindu Business Line (2003), ‘Ranbaxy buys Aventis' generics unit in France’, Dec 14.
Ranbaxy Annual Report 2004, pp. 54.
Table-18. Sales, Profit Before Tax and Total Asset of Ranbaxy Pharmacie Generiques
SAS, 2004, 2005
In million Euros
sales PBT Asset
2005 59.47 -2.4 38.67
2004 58.21 -1.25 40.43
Source: Data collected from Ranbaxy’s head office via special request from authors.

Although it is very early to assess the contribution of this acquisition, overall RPG
Aventis has provided three direct benefits to Ranbaxy. It has provided access to existing
leadership position in a hitherto new market for the company, an established marketing and
distribution networks and a portfolio of well-known generic products. Turnaround in
profitability may take place only after a few years.

4. Conclusion and Policy Implications

India is among a few developing countries to have a globally competitive
pharmaceutical industry. The study shows that the evolution, growth and internationalization
of Indian pharmaceutical industry during past decades were critically linked to suitable
national policies undertaken at appropriate times. These strategic government policies
initiated domestic capability building in technology, skill and entrepreneurship developments
related to pharmaceutical industry and were extremely successful in developing a globally
competitive industry from a non-existent production base. The main lesson from India’s
experience in pharmaceutical industry is that government intervention is indispensable for
developing countries wanting to build their domestic base in such technology- intensive
industries. Market forces do play an important role once the process of capacity building by
government intervention achieves a critical level but they are incapable of initiating such a
process. Had India left everything to the market forces to initiate its domestic capability
building in a knowledge-based industry like pharmaceuticals then India would not have
achieved the competitive strength it possess in the industry today. The industry might have
continued to be dependent upon imports of bulk drugs and foreign firms, which are enjoying
strong patent monopoly under the colonial patent act and might have continued to simply
distribute imported drugs and charging maximum prices.
Other developing countries, following Ind ian experience, should start public sector
enterprises to create required technologies, skills and production processes to manufacture
drugs indigenously. Public investment in pharmaceutical research, research institutions and
laboratory facilities, technical centers for specific entrepreneurial and skill creation like
training of pharmaceutical scientists, engineers, and pharmacy practitioners, etc., are
essential policy tools. With the emergence of TRIPs regime, adopting a soft patent regime is
no more a viable policy tool for capacity building for these governments. However, these
developing countries can target off-patented segment of life-saving drugs as a starting point
and try to move upwards. As creating required technologies for this segment is very costly
they can obtain these via licensing agreements from global players or from developing
country players like India. As the cost of technology transfers from developed country
multinationals may be higher and also they are may be less willingness, developing countries
should strive to secure technology from their fellow countries like India. Since Indian firms
have shown great intensity to undertake joint ventures in fellow developing countries under
the ‘south-south’ cooperation pursued by developing countries in the past, the potential of
such cooperation may still be relevant today.
As far as Indian policy makers are concerned, this study suggests that they should
encourage overseas acquisitions over greenfield investment strategy as more effective
internationalization strategies. As far as competitive advantages of Indian pharmaceutical
firms are concerned outward greenfield investment in the form of developing trade
supporting networks overseas offer the most important route of exploiting such advantages.
Overseas acquisition not only enhance competitive advantages by providing access to new
product portfolios, technology and skills, but also ensure an established marketing and
distribution networks, an existing market and scope to benefit from operating synergies. The
experience of Ranbaxy laboratories with three overseas acquisitions shows that these
advantages have played an important role in enhancing competitive strength of the acquiring
firm in targeted market. This finding suggests that policy makers should take appropriate
measures to remove barriers for Indian pharmaceutical companies to acquire overseas
business. Besides according automatic approvals to overseas acquisition applications, India
should develop a suitable support programme to help pharmaceutical firms in overseas
acquisitions. This support framework may involve access to consultancy services in
evaluating the acquisition opportunities in overseas market, provision of cheap credit for
acquisition and insurance coverage against political risks, human resource development and
management training to effectively integrate acquired entity in the face of cross-country
differences in culture, business practices and legal system, etc. Since a large number of
Indian pharmaceutical firms are acquiring companies abroad, establishing databases on such
acquisitions and economic performances of acquired entities, are important for analyzing
their contribution to national development. Finally, the study suggest s that Indian
pharmaceutical enterprises may be better off by adopting overseas acquisition to enhance
their global presence tha n undertaking overseas greenfield investment.


Business Wire (1995), ‘Ranbaxy acquires Ohm Laboratories’, Sept. 25

Business Wire (1996), ‘Ohm Laboratories Completes New State-of-the-Art Manufacturing
Facility; India's Ranbaxy Laboratories U.S. Arm To Produce Broader Line of Oral
Generic Pharmaceuticals’, July 31.
Business World (2004), ‘PHARMA M&AS: What's the big deal? ’, June 28
Caves, R. E. (1971), ‘International corporations: The industrial economics of foreign
investment’, Economica, 56: 279-93.
Domai.n-B.Com (2005), ‘Matrix Labs acquires Belgian drug firm Docpharma for $263 m’,
June 20; Hindu Business Line (2005), ‘Matrix to acquire Belgian drug firm
Docpharma for $263 m’, Jun 20. (2001), ‘Ranbaxy's US subsidiary launches ibuprofen- pseudoephedrine
combination product’, October 10.
Hindu Business Line (2001), ‘Ranbaxy arm in marketing tie-up for Advil tablets’, October
Hind u Business Line (2002), ‘Ranbaxy to gain royalty from Bayer for Cipro’, Tuesday, Dec
Hindu Business Line (2002), ‘Ranbaxy: A dose of US’, Friday, Jan 11.
Hindu Business Line (2003), ‘Novo Nordisk drops clinical trials on Dr Reddy's molecule’,
Feb 07.
Hindu Business Line (2003), ‘Ranbaxy buys Aventis' generics unit in France’, Dec 14.
Hindu Business Line (2003), ‘Ranbaxy buys Aventis' generics unit in France’, Dec 14.
Hindu Business Line (2003), ‘Ranbaxy buys Aventis' generics unit in France’, Dec 14.
Hindu Business Line (2005), ‘Sun Pharma acquires Hungarian unit of US co’, Thursday, Aug
Hindu Business Line (2006), ‘Bhai Mohan Singh: Pioneer of pharma’, Mar 29; Economic
Times (2006) ‘Story-teller was the story’, April 12.
Hindu Business Line (2006), ‘Dr Reddy's acquisition includes research centre’, Feb 18.
Hindu Business Line (2006), ‘Dr Reddy's buys German co Betapharm for Rs 2,250 cr —
Biggest overseas acquisition by an Indian pharma co’, Feb 17.
Hymer, S. (1960), The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Foreign
India Infoline (2004), ‘Dr.Reddy’s Research Foundation Pharmacophore 2004 Address by Dr
K Anji Reddy, Chairman’, January 17. Available at:
http://www.ind .
Investment, doctoral dissertation, MIT, (Published in 1976, MIT Press, Cambridge).
Malaysian Industrial Development Authority (2003), ‘Ranbaxy ups stake in local ops’, 7

Pradhan, J.P. (2006), ‘Global Competitiveness of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry: Trends
and Strategies’, ISID Working Paper, 2006/05, New Delhi.
Pradhan, J.P. (2005), ‘Outward Foreign Direct Investment from India: Recent Trends and
Patterns’, GIDR Working Paper, No. 153, Gujarat Institute of Development Research,
Ahmedabad, India.
Ranbaxy (2005), ‘Ranbaxy Gains Approval to Market Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride
Extended-Release Tablets’, Press Release September 28.
Ranbaxy (2005), ‘Ranbaxy Q1, 05 Global Sales At USD 261 Mn’, Press Release April 28.
Ranbaxy Annual Report 2004. (2004), ‘Ranbaxy is what it is because we took risks’, The Rediff
Interview/Malvinder Singh, President, Ranbaxy, November 25. Available at:

Appendix Table-6. List of Joint Ventures and Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Abroad by Indian Pharmaceutical Firms, 1990-1999
Company Year Ownership Country JV/ Date of Equity $ Field of Collaboration Objective of
WOS Approval million OFDI
Glenmark Pharmaceutical
1990 50.77 Portugal JV 24.10.1990 Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
Manufacture of
Elegant Apparels Pvt. Ltd. 1991 40 Bangladesh JV 25.02.1991 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Dabur Ltd. 1991 80 Nepal 09.10.1991
Gujarat Injects Ltd. 1991 6.67 UAE JV 10.10.1991 I.V.Fluids
Torrent Exports Ltd. 1992 50 Azerbaijan JV 21.04.1992 Pharmaceuticals Marketing
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1992 80.13 Hong Kong WOS 24.06.1992 Drugs and
Mideast (India) Ltd. 1992 100 Mauritius WOS 06.11.1992 Drugs and
Malladi Drugs and Drugs and
1992 33 Spain JV 17.11.1992 Manufacturing
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Trading of Bulk Drugs
Cheminor Drugs Ltd. 1992 75 USA WOS 20.11.1992 0.192 Trading
and Intermediatyes
Drugs and
Shalaks Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 1993 80 Australia 05.08.1993
Velvette International Pharma Drugs and
1993 40 Bangladesh 30.07.1993
Products Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Drugs and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1993 50 Canada JV 28.05.1993
Drugs and Manufacturing and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1993 70 China JV 21.09.1993
Pharmaceuticals Marketing
Sun Pharmaceuticals 1993 100 Hungary WOS 06.12.1993 Pharmaceuticals
Wockhardt Ltd. 1993 100 Ireland WOS 08.12.1993 Pharmaceuticals Trading
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and
V.B. Ltd. 1993 100 Kenya WOS 24.12.1993
Preparations marketing
Manufacturing and
Ace Laboratories 1993 33.18 Nepal 21.04.1993 Pharmaceuticals
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1993 100 Netherlands WOS 11.05.1993 2 Pharmaceuticals Marketing
Sun Pharmaceuticals 1993 100 Russia WOS 06.12.1993 Pharmaceuticals
Velvette International Pharma 1993 40 Sri Lanka JV 22.11.1993 Herbal Ayurvedic Manufacturing and
Products Ltd Products marketing
Ajanta Pharma 1993 50 Turkmenistan JV 07.05.1993 Drugs and Marketing
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1993 50 Turkmenistan JV 04.03.1993
Cadila Exports Ltd. 1993 100 UK WOS 18.03.1993 Drugs and Manufacturing and
Pharmaceuticals Trading
Drugs and Manufacturing and
Wockhardt International Ltd. 1993 49 USA 21.12.1993
Pharmaceuticals marketing
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1993 51 Uzbekistan JV 12.04.1993
Drugs and
Kopran Ltd. 1994 100 Hong Kong WOS 13.04.1994
Pharmaceutical and
Ajanta Pharma 1994 50 Kazakhstan 12.07.1994 Manufacturing
allied products
Drugs and
Sun Pharmaceuticals 1994 100 Switzerland WOS 19.04.1994 Trading
Madhur Pharma & Research Drugs and
1994 49.03 Tajikistan 01.09.1994
Labs Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceuticals and
Kopran Ltd. 1994 100 UK WOS 06.06.1994 Trading
Drugs and
Sun Pharmaceuticals 1994 100 Ukraine WOS 20.04.1994 Trading
Drugs and
Cipla Ltd. 1995 55 China 14.11.1995
Drugs and
Dr.Reddy's Labs Ltd. 1995 100 Hong Kong WOS 07.02.1995
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1995 90 Mauritius 12.01.1995
Drugs and
Core Healthcare Limited 1995 100 Russia WOS 29.11.1995
Drugs and
Dr.Reddy's Labs Ltd. 1995 76 Russia 27.04.1195 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Dr.Reddy's Labs Ltd. 1995 35 Russia 24.08.1995
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1995 35 Tajikistan 04.01.1995
Drugs and
Core Healthcare Limited 1995 49 UK 24.08.1995
Drugs and
Sun Pharmaceuticals 1995 100 UK WOS 20.06.1995
Drugs and
Natco Pharma 1995 85 USA 08.09.1995
Drugs and
Shasun Chemicals 1995 89.71 USA 02.03.1995
Drugs and Manufacturing and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1996 70 China JV 15.05.1996 1.75
Pharmaceuticals Marketing
Drugs and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1996 China JV 01.08.1996 0.65 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Cheminor Drugs Ltd. 1996 100 France WOS 14.06.1996 0.189 Trading
Drugs and
Nukem Remedies Ltd. 1996 Hungary JV 15.07.1996 0.151 Trading
Drugs and
Cadila Healthcare 1996 100 Ireland WOS 14.08.1996 0.078 Trading
Drugs and
Wockhardt Ltd. 1996 100 Ireland WOS 13.09.1996 14.5 Manufacturing
Medicrop Technologies India Drugs and
1996 51 Jordan JV 11.11.1996 0.026 Trading
Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Drugs and
Lupin Laboratories 1996 100 Lu xemburg WOS 06.12.1996 4 Trading
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1996 35 Malaysia JV 04.01.1996 0.358 Formulations Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1996 75 Mauritius JV 12.08.1996 0.75 Manufacturing
Ajanta Pharma 1996 Mauritius JV 01.08.1996 0.2 Manufacturing
formulations, etc.
Bulk Drugs, injections,
J B Chemicals 1996 100 Mauritius WOS 27.11.1996 1 Trading
tablets, etc.
Drugs and
Nicholas Piramal India 1996 100 Mauritius WOS 10.09.1996 1.65 Trading
Drugs and
Adhyatama Invetments 1996 100 Nepal WOS 06.08.1996 0.169 Trading
Concept Pharmaceutical Ltd. 1996 100 Nepal WOS 01.08.1996 0.169 Marketing
Drugs and
Dabur Ltd. 1996 Nepal JV 10.07.1996 1.267 Manufacturing
Licensing the right for
Dr.Reddy's Labs Ltd. 1996 100 Netherlands WOS 01.03.1996 0.5 Manufacturing
manufacturing of drugs
Drugs and
USV Ltd. 1996 100 Nigeria WOS 23.07.1996 0.061 Trading
Intravenous Fluids,
Parenteral Drugs 1996 Sri Lanka JV 08.07.1996 0.603 Manufacturing
Tablets & Capsules
Drugs and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1996 41.33 Thailand JV 18.05.1996 0.213 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1996 Turkmenistan JV 01.07.1996 Manufacturing
Cadila Healthcare 1996 UK JV 01.08.1996 1.4 Health Care Products Manufacturing
Core Healthcare Limited 1996 100 UK WOS 10.08.1996 1.47 Drugs and Manufacturing
Shahnaz Hussain Herbal Ltd. 1996 100 UK WOS 01.03.1996 0.128 Herbal Ayurvedic Manufacturing and
Products Trading
Parenteral Drugs 1996 Ukraine JV 08.07.1996 0.552 Intravenous Fluids, Manufacturing
Tablets & Capsules
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1996 USA JV 25.07.1996 0.18 Trading
Malladi Drugs and Drugs and
1996 100 USA WOS 23.10.1996 0.02 Trading
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Nukem Remedies Ltd. 1996 90 USA JV 07.02.1996 0.9 Ayurvedic Products Marketing
Cadila Healthcare 1996 60 Uzbekistan JV 18.10.1996 0.06 Trading
Formulations and
Disposables Devices
Drugs and
Core Healthcare Limited 1996 60 Uzbekistan JV 18.10.1996 0.06 Trading
Drugs and
Nicholas Piramal India 1997 66.26 Botswana JV 21.07.1997 0.164 Manufacturing
Glenmark Pharmaceutical Drugs and
1997 100 Canada WOS 19.07.1997 0.281 Manufacturing
Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Drugs and
Wockhardt Ltd. 1997 China JV 02.12.1997 4.2 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Dishman Pharmaceuticals 1997 100 Cyprus WOS 30.08.1997 0.15 Trading
Drugs and
Recon Ltd. 1997 51 Indonesia JV 06.01.1997 0.51 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1997 87.5 Kazakhstan JV 04.07.1997 3 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1997 41.87 Kyrgyzstan JV 27.06.1997 1.57 Manufacturing
Ace Laboratories 1997 50 Mauritius JV 29.10.1997 0.589 Pharmaceuticals Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1997 88 Mauritius JV 07.07.1997 0.813 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Akshata Holdings 1997 Nepal JV 30.09.1997 0.436 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Dabur Ltd. 1997 Nepal JV 27.10.1997 5 Manufacturing
Drugs and
FDC Ltd. 1997 100 Netherlands WOS 20.01.1997 0.5 Trading
Drugs and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1997 100 Netherlands WOS 31.07.1997 28 Trading
Drugs and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1997 100 Netherlands WOS 27.02.1997 10 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Torrent Pharmaceuticals 1997 100 Russia WOS 06.01.1997 0.16 Trading
Drugs and
Lupin Laboratories 1997 60 South Africa JV 15.04.1197 Trading
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1997 37.5 Tajikistan JV 01.01.1997 0.095 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Lupin Agro Chemicals 1997 Thailand JV 16.01.1997 0.555 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Lupin Laboratories 1997 60 Thailand JV 16.01.1997 0.981 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Kopran Ltd. 1997 50 Uganda JV 22.02.1997 1.35 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Dishman Pharmaceutic als 1997 100 UK WOS 23.05.1997 0.264 Trading
Drugs and
Serene Industries Ltd. 1997 UK JV 01.12.1997 1.663 Trading
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1997 100 Ukraine WOS 30.05.1997 0.05 Trading
Drugs and
Core Healthcare Limited 1997 100 Ukraine WOS 22.10.1997 0.1 Trading
Drugs and
Natco Pharma 1997 USA JV 08.10.1997 1.5 Manufacturing
Pharmaceutical Products of
1997 USA JV 24.07.1997 0.1 products, bulk drugs, Trading
India Ltd.
Drugs and
Sun Pharmaceuticals 1997 USA JV 20.04.1997 26.68 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ace Laboratories 1997 60 Uzbekistan JV 15.01.1997 0.291 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ajanta Pharma 1997 100 Uzbekistan WOS 31.05.1997 0.05 Trading
Drugs and
Core Healthcare Limited 1997 Uzbekistan JV 20.01.1997 2.908 Trading
Drugs and
Core Healthcare Limited 1997 Uzbekistan JV 10.11.1997 6.7 Trading
Drugs and
Core Worldwide Ltd 1998 100 Azerbaijan WOS 24.03.1998 0.012 Trading
Drugs and
Core Worldwide Ltd 1998 100 Brazil WOS 24.03.1998 0.01 Trading
Drugs and
Aurobindo Pharma 1998 100 Hong Kong WOS 04.09.1998 0.15 Trading
Drugs and
Wockhardt Ltd. 1998 100 Ireland WOS 27.10.1998 8.395 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Wockhardt Ltd. 1998 100 Ireland WOS 11.02.1998 8 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Core Worldwide Ltd 1998 100 Ivory Coast WOS 24.03.1998 0.011 Trading
Drugs and
Core Worldwide Ltd 1998 100 Kenya WOS 24.03.1998 0.01 Trading
Drugs and
Mayo India Ltd. 1998 Kyrgyzstan JV 10.02.1998 0.561 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Lupin Laboratories 1998 100 Luxemburg WOS 07.08.1998 2 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1998 Malaysia JV 16.09.1998 0.376 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Ace Laboratories 1998 Nepal JV 30.11.1998 0.235 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Adhyatama Investments 1998 100 Nepal WOS 08.07.1998 0.442 Trading
Drugs and
Colgate Palmolive 1998 100 Nepal WOS 09.01.1998 3.556 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Dabur Ltd. 1998 Nepal JV 10.07.1998 2.528 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Lupin Laboratories 1998 Russia JV 12.02.1998 0.009 Trading
Drugs and
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1998 Thailand JV 17.07.1998 Trading
Personal & healthcare
Dabur Ltd. 1998 UK JV 06.03.1998 2.439 Manufacturing
Max India 1998 100 UK WOS 03.08.1998 0.5 Drugs and Trading
Ajas Components P Ltd. 1998 100 USA WOS 21.07.1998 0.075 Drugs and Trading
AR Chhadda & Co. 1998 100 USA WOS 26.05.1998 0.1 Drugs and Trading
Aurobindo Pharma 1998 100 USA WOS 26.05.1998 0.1 Drugs and Trading
Shasun Chemicals 1998 100 USA WOS 25.05.1998 0.015 Drugs and Trading
Ajanta Pharma 1998 100 Uzbekistan WOS 16.02.1998 0.15 Drugs and Trading
Core Worldwide Ltd 1999 100 Brazil WOS 20.02.1999 1 Drugs and Trading
Dr.Reddy's Labs Ltd. 1999 Brazil JV 20.09.1999 1.5 Drugs and Trading
Atmasantulana Ayurveda 1999 100 Germany WOS 08.11.1999 0.028 Drugs and Trading
Ltd. Pharmaceuticals
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. 1999 Malaysia JV 27.09.1999 0.129 Drugs and Manufacturing
Adhyatama Invetments 1999 100 Nepal WOS 11.03.1999 0.186 Drugs and Trading
Drugs and
Dabur Ltd. 1999 Nepal JV 16.02.1999 3.6 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Cadila Pharmaceuticals 1999 100 Sri Lanka WOS 24.11.1999 1.997 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Aurobindo Pharma 1999 Thailand JV 19.07.1999 0.052 Trading
Drugs and
Kopran Ltd. 1999 UAE JV 31.07.1999 2.582 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Dabur Ltd. 1999 100 UK WOS 18.8.1999 2.5 Trading
Drugs and
Aurobindo Pharma 1999 100 USA WOS 25.10.1999 0.2 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Cadila Pharmaceuticals 1999 100 USA WOS 08.12.1999 0.005 Trading
Drugs and
Shasun Chemicals 1999 100 USA WOS 21.12.1999 2 Trading
Drugs and
Sun Pharmaceuticals 1999 USA JV 15.03.1999 5.3 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Gufic Ltd. 1999 Uzbekistan JV 19.01.1999 0.25 Manufacturing
Drugs and
Rallis India Ltd. 1999 Zimbabwe JV 31.07.1999 1.108 Manufacturing
Source: Based on various sources: i. Indian Investment Centre (1998) Indian Joint Ventures & Wholly owned Subsidiaries Abroad Approved during the year 1996,
New Delhi; ii. Indian Investment Centre (1998) Indian Joint Ventures & Wholly owned Subsidiaries Abroad Approved upto December 1995, New Delhi; iii.
Research and Information System (2002) Indian Outward FDI Database, New Delhi.